Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Do not tempt me—you are doing well! I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I would like to give the Minister another chance, because that was pretty dismal stuff even by his standards. India has one of the poorest human rights records in the world when it comes to child labour. To give the Minister an opportunity to get us to a position where we could potentially support a deal, will he explain how Ministers and the Government are engaging with negotiators in India to tackle child labour there and to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become complicit in that exploitation?

[Greg Hands]

Of course the UK has a very proud record on labour standards and on raising these issues with counterparts at all levels. Lord Ahmad was in India just a couple of weeks ago raising specific human rights issues, including a case that the SNP has raised frequently. The Government are proud of our record on labour protections and have been clear that an FTA with India does not come at the expense of labour standards. But may I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the rhetorical question: when will the SNP ever support a trade deal with anybody?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State please confirm that this Government have no plans to alter the legislation on the marketing of infant formula and other breastmilk substitutes?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I am very happy to write to him about it.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 General Committees

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Harris. The instrument before us repeals a measure that allowed employers of au pairs, nannies, carers and companions an exemption from the requirement to pay the national minimum wage. It immediately begs the question of why they were allowed not to. It has also had the effect of excluding some domestic workers, particularly those from overseas, from the protections that the national minimum wage is designed to offer.

On that basis, the SNP thoroughly support this instrument. The exemption in the national minimum wage legislation always carried the risk of leaving people being exploited. As the Minister has outlined, the Low Pay Commission recommended in October 2021 that it be repealed following the decision of an earlier employment tribunal. In our view, making this amendment is absolutely the right thing to do. Fundamentally, paying people a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work is a cornerstone of a fair society. This instrument sets a clear requirement and expectation of what has to be done. That is very much to be welcomed.

As the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire have said, many of the workers affected by this instrument are likely to be in quite vulnerable, potentially precarious situations. They may not know about what we are discussing today and the effects it has. They may not know how to assert their rights in future once it is passed. They are therefore at risk of continued exploitation. I welcome the assurances given by the Minister about how that issue can kept in mind and monitored, but I find much merit in what the shadow Minister has called for: a public information campaign so that as many people as possible can know about what is happening today, whether it is their own rights or the rights of others, and so that employers know what their responsibilities are to their workers who are affected. With that in mind, we are very happy to support the measure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokes- person.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

How strange the change from minor to major in that response. Financial transparency and accountability are essential components of economic stability. For three years now, the Government have been promising legislation and improved checks on company finances, but they have repeatedly failed to deliver. How can the Minister justify leaving the audit and governance Bill out of the King’s Speech, when it is supported by businesses, regulators and auditors alike?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We work very closely with the Financial Reporting Council. No one can deny that the FRC has changed its approach completely and is now a much more effective regulator. Sir Jon Thompson did a fantastic job when he was there, and the current chief executive, Richard Moriarty, and chair, Jan du Plessis, are following his work. We are confident that the FRC can make sure that the UK’s corporate regime works effectively, without tying businesses up in red tape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

We are ready to have a free trade agreement with the US, but it is not undertaking free trade agreements with any country. That is, of course, disappointing, but it knows that we stand ready. That is why we have the state MOU programme. The latest figures show that UK-US trade has reached £310 billion. We are the biggest investor in Florida. I was pleased to meet Governor DeSantis earlier this month, and I also met the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, who wanted to be even faster in signing an MOU with the UK. They believe that this country has a lot of opportunity, and they want to do business with us.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Import tariffs on egg products allow us to recognise the higher cost of UK egg production because of safety, welfare and environmental considerations. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that eggs and egg products will be afforded sensitive product status by the UK in future free trade agreement negotiations, and that import tariffs will remain in place on those products?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Greg Hands)]

It is difficult to comment on tariffs in live negotiations, but I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman: first, this country imports very few eggs from abroad, and secondly, anything that happens with imported eggs would not change our standards on food imports, food safety and animal welfare in this country.

Draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Services Exclusions) Regulations 2023

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 General Committees

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. As the Minister said, my party did not support the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. The powers that ought to have gone to devolved Governments in the aftermath of Brexit —which, again, we did not support—seem to have found themselves stuck in Westminster, largely due to the Act. Many of our fears have been borne out in the way that the Act has operated, particularly with regard to how the UK Government have used it to interfere utterly unjustifiably in things such as a simple deposit return scheme. That is not how we would wish an internal market to work, and the Act has not helped in that respect.

The lack of legislative consent motions is largely academic. I say that for two main reasons. First, the UK Government have shown over the last few years—this one have, anyway—that even if they do not have a legislative consent motion, they will just go ahead anyway. Secondly, in this case, as the Minister said, there has been constructive engagement with the devolved Administrations, even if some issues remain. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that there has been constructive engagement.

I draw Members’ attention in particular to two areas—heat regulation and the exclusion of the education sector, particularly qualifications-awarding services—where the UK Government have recognised that there are sound policy objectives for having different regulatory approaches in different parts of the UK. I very much welcome that. Of course, it is well known and well understood that Scotland and the rest of the UK have different education and qualification systems, and—if I may be so bold as to say so, Ms Elliott—long may that remain so. Next time the Minister has the ear of the Prime Minister, who has been talking enthusiastically about his British baccalaureate, which he wishes to replace A-levels, he might wish to try to prevail on the Prime Minister to refer to it as what it is: an English baccalaureate. We will be keeping our system in Scotland, so long as the internal market Act does not get in the way of that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

As if the future stoking of inflation through extra Brexit red tape was not bad enough, businesses are already having to cope with uncertainty, the lack of a level playing field and the threat to our own food safety and security through the failure to introduce checks of our own. Given that Ministers were saying as recently as April that those checks will begin on 31 March, can the Minister explain how businesses are expected to get to grips with all this turmoil in Government policy given their tendency to keep kicking the can down the road over border checks?

[Ms Ghani]

Food inflation is a global issue: it is not a problem just here in the UK. Many factors influence food prices globally, notably energy costs. Global wholesale food prices have been falling since March and sometimes that can take time to reach consumers. In July, UK food inflation was just over 14%, down from 17%. The hon. Gentleman did not specify which issue he was touching on, but if it was to do with sanitary and phytosanitary controls for goods from the EU, that will be introduced and in place by 31 January 2024.

[Richard Thomson]

The Government could stop making existing global problems even worse when they apply to the UK—I was following up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) about the cost of checks on imported food—but the only thing worse than bad border checks is no border checks at all. We are no longer imposing SPS checks on food coming in from the EU. Is the Minister proud that, under the guise of taking back control, she is part of a Government who have given away control instead?

[Ms Ghani]

I referenced in my previous response the SPS controls; they were not in place when we were in the EU so I am not sure exactly what the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety is.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It feels unnecessary to repeat this, but this Government seem willing to sign up to any trade deals. My party is in favour of good ones, and we are against poor ones, and that is why we oppose this deal. [Interruption.] The concerns that we have, despite the heckling from those on the Government Benches, about the lack of mechanisms to safeguard workers’ rights and about the potential impacts on domestic standards, particularly in the agrifoods sectors, do not go away with blustery repetition and flat contradiction, which seems to be the stock-in-trade in all that Government Front Benchers have to say about this deal.

The Secretary of State gets aerated whenever it is pointed out that the Government’s own figures show that GDP is estimated to increase by only 0.08% over the next 10 years as a result of the deal, at the same time as the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a 4% hit to GDP through Brexit. Ministers have had an awful long time to find out what the figure actually is, if they do not believe that 0.08% figure. Without reference to vague opportunities, the number of middle-class consumers in the Pacific rim or the GDP of countries in the CPTPP, and without deviation, repetition or hesitation, what exactly will the impact be on UK GDP as a result of this deal?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Again, I am disappointed to see the hon. Gentleman talk negatively about a deal that will benefit Scotland as well as all other parts of the United Kingdom. It will add significant amounts. We estimate that in the long run, at least £2 billion a year will be added to the UK economy, including in his constituency. Perhaps he would like to welcome that, rather than be negative about it. Also, this is a growing area of the world. There are likely to be new members, so we anticipate considerable opportunities going forward. In Scotland, 547 businesses are already owned by CPTPP countries, employing more than 20,000 people in Scotland. Perhaps he would like to welcome that.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Neil Coyle]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Schedule 18

Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—

“32 Making claims about—

(a) the environmental benefits, or

(b) the sustainability (as defined by section 234(1C)) of a product or service which are not based on evidence which can be verified by a court.”

This amendment seeks to ban the practice of “greenwashing”. It would include the making of unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of products and services an unfair commercial practice.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 69, in clause 234, page 157, line 29, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on a definition of sustainability for the purposes of paragraph 32 of Schedule 18.

(1B) A consultation under subsection (1A) must—

(a) set out which products and services can be labelled sustainable; and

(b) require the definition to comply with international standards.

(1C) Following a consultation under subsection (1A) the Secretary of State must by regulations amend this Chapter to add a definition of sustainable.”

This amendment seeks to ban the practice of “greenwashing”. It requires the Government to define which products and services can be labelled “sustainable” and requires that this definition complies with international standards.

[Richard Thomson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. With your indulgence, if it is appropriate, I will also speak to amendment 69 and am happy to speak to amendments 115 and 116.

[The Chair]

We will stick to amendments 68 and 69.

[Richard Thomson]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr McCabe.

I have not yet spoken in Committee, and the reason for that is simple. As I said on Second Reading, from a Scottish National party perspective, we think that the Bill is generally speaking a good Bill. Our concern is primarily with the bits that we feel are missing, so the amendments that I will speak to this morning and afternoon are with a view to fill in some of the potholes that we see in the road for the Bill.

Amendments 68 and 69 would tackle the phenomenon of greenwashing. By that, I mean the practice by which companies use advertising and/or public messaging to appear more eco-friendly, whether in the generality or with regard to specific products, than is actually the case. The amendments would compel the Secretary of State to consult on a definition of sustainability for these purposes that is in line with international standards and then to amend the relevant chapter to add that definition to the Bill, and to add greenwashing to the schedule 18 list of practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Amendments 68 and 69 would add the practice of greenwashing to the list of banned practices in schedule 18, and would introduce a requirement for the Government to consult on the matter. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for his amendments, and I absolutely agree that consumers should not be misled. I admire his commitment to recycling, which is admirable. I wondered whether I should touch on that, given the difficulties that the SNP has got into with its deposit return scheme, but—

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the Minister for that sideswipe, but it would be a great deal easier for the Scottish Government to comply with an English-designed scheme if that scheme was actually in existence for us to emulate. Absent our deposit return scheme, we are stuck with the recycling schemes that we have, and I wonder whether the Minister will get to the point.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was just referring to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will briefly say that our perspective is that a nationwide scheme would be best for business.

Misleading consumers about the environmental qualities or impact of goods and services in a way that causes, or would likely cause, consumers to take a different decision is already against the law. Furthermore, under clause 187, when the CMA gives a provisional notice to a person in respect of an infringement of the unfair trading provisions, the CMA can require the respondent to provide evidence to substantiate the claims that they make to consumers. That meets the shadow Minister’s requirement. It is against the law to mislead, and as she says, the CMA’s draft guidance on sustainability agreements between businesses, which aim to ensure that environmental goals are achieved, will give greater clarity on these issues. Those interventions are already significant. The Government’s priority is to ensure that interventions support our environmental goals; we would then observe their impact before taking further steps. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw amendment 68 on that basis.

[Richard Thomson]

I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but this is an issue of fundamental importance, and if I withdrew the amendment, it would be an opportunity missed. Of course, we could go through any number of proposed amendments to the Bill and say that there is already legislation in place that in some way tackles that issue. Of course it is true that there are measures on this issue, but there is still a proliferation of claims out there that have not been tackled by existing legislation. I know the Minister is a keen advocate for ensuring that markets work as effectively as they can, and for allowing markets to reach conclusions. The amendment is simply a tool that would allow Ministers to act in the interests of consumers. It would be a missed opportunity not to push it to a vote, and not to include it in the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I am pleased to speak to amendment 116, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and me. I will also touch on amendment 125, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. They are similar provisions, and he will want to make his own arguments for amendment 125.

Amendment 116 adds the practice of commissioning fake reviews, offering to provide the service of writing fake reviews, and displaying consumer reviews without taking reasonable steps to verify their accuracy to the list of unfair commercial practices. Amendment 125 would similarly add fake reviews to the list of banned practices. We support both the amendments, but I will speak to amendment 116 in more detail, as it provides a more comprehensive legislative basis for banning fake reviews, and was recommended by the consumer group Which?.

When the Bill was published, the Government announced with much fanfare that they would introduce provisions banning the unfair commercial practice of fake reviews. However, nowhere in the Bill is there any measure that bans fake reviews. The supposed banning of fake reviews can be found in clause 234, which gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of banned practices. Unless the Minister corrects me, all we have is a promise from the Government that at some point in the future—beyond 2025—fake reviews might be banned. As Which? said during the Committee’s evidence sessions,

“We do not think that we should wait. Clearly, fake reviews are harmful, so the buying, selling and hosting of fake reviews should be included in schedule 18.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 13, Q16.]

It was not just consumer groups that expressed that sentiment; the British Retail Consortium also stated:

“We are concerned about fake reviews. We support the banning of them. We wish that what the Government propose for them was on the face of the Bill.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 49, Q78.]

I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of why the Government have left a ban out of primary legislation. One view is that the Government intended to include a ban, but ran out of time. Well, we have time to catch up during the passage of the Bill. Retail and consumer groups consider this measure very much noticeable by its absence, and it is important and significant that we address it during the passage of the Bill.

I have no doubt that the Minister will stress the need for further work and consultation on the issue. If so, perhaps he could also reflect on the considerable evidence of consumer detriment caused by fake reviews. Which? research from 2020 found that consumers are far more than twice as likely to buy poor-quality products that have been boosted by fake reviews. That affects the Minister’s constituents, mine, and those of every Member of this Committee.

As the CMA has noted, the average UK household spends £900 a year as a result of being influenced by online reviews. That demonstrates how significant the financial damage of fake reviews can be. In the Department for Business and Trade’s research from April this year, 11% to 15% of reviews in the category that it assessed were fake. That is the Government’s own research. The evidence is clear: action on fake reviews is needed now to protect consumers from their negative consequences. I would go so far as to say that the Opposition are doing the Government a favour by introducing these amendments. We have done the Government’s work for them.

I urge the Minister to support the amendments. Perhaps he will want to bring forward his own, as the Government are known to take good ideas when they see them, many of which they take from the Opposition. We understand that there has been significant dysfunction in Government, which may have got in the way of their doing the work that the country needs them to do. I therefore urge the Minister to support the amendments. He may also want to bring forward his own amendments at a future stage of the Bill or in the other place. I jest, with good reason, but we are not precious; we just want the right thing to be done. I hope that in his response, the Minister will confirm what action the Government will take during the passage of the Bill.

[Richard Thomson]

I very much support amendment 116, to the extent that I withdrew my attempt at an amendment that would have countered fake reviews. It is clear that fake reviews are a matter of real concern, not just for reputable companies, but for consumers, who like to rely on customer feedback before making some of their most important financial choices. Schedule 18 defines and sets out unfair practices, and it is only right that fake reviews be added to them. We again come back to the fundamental principle that if a market is to work effectively and efficiently, people need access to timely and accurate information. That goal of having accurate information in the marketplace is subverted considerably when fake information and misinformation are allowed to abound.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Under clause 224, as the Minister says, the consumer will be able to enforce their right to redress relating to unfair commercial practices, subject to conditions, including that they have entered into a relevant contract, that the trader has engaged in a prohibited practice, that the prohibited practice was a significant factor in the consumer’s decision to make payment, and that the product concerned is not of an excluded type. Those are important provisions, including in the context of our debate about greenwashing. That is why it is important that we take forward the issues we have debated. None the less, we welcome the clause and these important provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 224 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 225

Rights of redress: further provision

[Richard Thomson]

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 225, page 152, line 30, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make any further provision necessary to ensure that the rights of redress available under this Chapter are equivalent to, and not lesser than, those available under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277).”

This amendment seeks to ensure that the “Consumer Rights to Redress” that will be set out through secondary legislation cannot offer a reduced level of the protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 114, in clause 225, page 152, line 33, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress by regulations set out in 225(1), and

(b) lay a copy of this report before Parliament.

(8) The report must be laid within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress through secondary legislation, as is the case in EU member states.

[Richard Thomson]

As the explanatory statement sets out, amendment 67 seeks to ensure that the consumer rights to redress introduced through secondary legislation by Ministers cannot offer less protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. That statutory instrument was effectively the successor to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and was designed to implement the unfair commercial practices directive as part of a common set of European minimum standards for consumer protection. Consumers, not just in Europe but throughout the UK, have benefited immensely from those protections. It is important as a point of principle that as legislation is repealed or evolves, there should be no inadvertent reduction in baseline consumer protections. There should be a reduction in consumer protections only where the Government deliberately choose to do so and we have an open debate.

The amendment is very much about ensuring that nothing slips down the drain inadvertently in terms of consumer protection. If the Government are not minded to accept it, what existing protections will they unwittingly let fall by the wayside? The amendment would capture the baseline level of protection through future secondary legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am pleased to speak to amendment 114, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. I will also make reference to amendment 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon.

Amendment 114 would require that the Secretary of State prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress through secondary legislation, as is the case in EU member states. Amendment 67 would ensure that the consumer rights to redress set out in secondary legislation cannot offer less protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. We support the principle of amendment 67, which would have a similar effect to amendment 114 by ensuring a more robust consumer right to redress.

More specifically on amendment 114, I refer the Minister to the written evidence of Which?, which notes that

“the Bill states that ‘Consumer Rights to Redress’ may be provided for in future secondary legislation, so it will give the Secretary of State powers to amend these rights. These rights are fundamentally important, as they include payment of damages when a trader misleads a consumer. We want assurances that they will not be downgraded as a result of this process, and a commitment from the Government to strengthen redress procedures when these new regulations are drafted.”

Amendment 114 would require a commitment from the Government to report on doing that, aiding the process of strengthening redress procedures when new regulations are drafted. I urge the Government to support amendments 114 and 67, and to ensure that consumer rights to redress are as strong as they can be, particularly in an increasingly digital economy.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Amendments 67 and 114 deal with consumers’ private rights to redress. I agree with the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Gordon that it is vital that consumers have robust private rights of redress.

Amendment 67 would limit changes by regulation to the consumer rights of redress to those that are equivalent to the remedies in the CPRs—the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The Bill includes powers to amend rights of redress. That could include how such rights are exercised; the powers could also be used to make those rights clearer and simpler. Those would be positive changes for consumers that might not meet the test of equivalence to the current regulations that the amendment would impose. We would like to retain the ability to exceed the existing private redress provisions, if appropriate, which may encourage more consumers to make use of these rights. The first regulations made using the power will be to create the new regime to replace the current private redress provisions in the CPRs. Accordingly, those regulations will be subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure, thereby providing for appropriate parliamentary oversight of use of the power.

I turn to amendment 114. The courts already have the power to make an enforcement order against an infringer, or to accept undertakings from them to provide redress to affected consumers, through the measures in part 3. Enforcers can also accept undertakings from infringers to provide redress to affected consumers. For example, in 2021 the CMA secured an undertaking from Teletext Holidays to pay over £7 million in outstanding refunds from package travel trips cancelled due to covid-19.

The Bill will make the power to require enhanced consumer measures directly available to the CMA. Consumers also already have individual private rights of redress. In the “Reforming competition and consumer policy” consultation, we consulted on whether to introduce a right for consumers to bring collective redress. Responses were mixed, with concerns raised about unintended consequences such as the creation of a claims culture and inadvertently disincentivising the bringing of proceedings by consumer groups.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston referred to the EU situation. The outcome, however, is similar to the desired situation under the EU’s directive on collective redress, which requires member states to designate entities, such as consumer organisations, that can bring actions for collective redress on consumers’ behalf. The EU does not mandate that member states introduce direct rights for individual consumers to bring an action for collective redress.

We will keep the evidence under review, but our priority is to embed the CMA direct enforcement regime and understand the impact that it makes. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

[Richard Thomson]

With regret, I am not minded to withdraw amendment 67. I hear what the Minister says about how the Government may wish to go beyond existing levels of consumer protection. That is welcome where appropriate, but I do not see anything in the amendment that would prevent Ministers from doing that. The key element in the amendment is to capture a baseline level of protection, equivalent to what was in the 2008 regulations, to ensure that there is nothing that dips below that without a conscious decision to do so having been taken and debated. On the basis that there is nothing that would prevent the Government from enhancing the levels of protection at any time, I am keen to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Scottish seafood industry has been hit with an estimated 50% increase in the cost of packaging owing to the requirement—thanks to the form of Brexit chosen by this Government—for export health certificates with every consignment. Does the Secretary of State accept that the form of Brexit that was chosen, and in particular the failure to align in respect of sanitary and phytosanitary matters, is adding costs to Scotland’s iconic seafood sector at a time when it can barely afford to absorb such costs?

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, I do not accept that at all. If anything, what is increasing the costs is what the Scottish Government have been doing in relation to the deposit return scheme. While complaining about our divergence between here and the EU, they are trying to split the UK single market, and we are not going to let them do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

This week, the European Council adopted the EU’s free trade agreement with New Zealand, which includes dedicated sustainable food systems chapters, a dedicated trade and gender equality article, and a provision on trade and fossil fuel subsidies reforms. Can the Secretary of State explain why our trade deal with New Zealand, if it is so good, fell so far short on those issues?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that, actually, the trade deal we negotiated with New Zealand makes things cheaper for our consumers, not more expensive, it is less protectionist and it is helping to improve relations between us and New Zealand. I disagree with his assessment of the EU-New Zealand free trade agreement: we looked at it and were actually quite pleased with what we got.

Insolvency Law and Director Disqualifications

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing the debate. Given its title, it could have gone in many directions, but I think we are coalescing around a theme.

Directors clearly have important duties to their companies and their shareholders, whether in good times or bad. They have legal duties, including the duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the shareholders. However, when a company is in financial difficulty and there is a risk of insolvency, another set of responsibilities kick in. There is a duty to creditors to minimise losses.

As each speaker has highlighted, the regime appears to be letting far too many people down, and it is often those who can afford to lose out the least who end up losing out the most. Our view is quite simple. The UK Government must ensure robust supervision. Proper deterrents should be in place to ensure that those responsible in cases of negligence, or where economic crime has been committed, can be held to account.

The organisation openDemocracy estimates that fraud costs the UK about £290 billion a year in total and, in recent years, high-profile corporate scandals such as those at British Home Stores and Carillion raised serious questions about the level and quality of corporate governance in the UK and about the ability of those charged with supervising that governance to spot the obvious danger signs. In particular—I think it bears repetition—the collapse of Carillion in 2018 led to the loss of thousands of jobs and delay to many hundreds of infrastructure projects, while the directors walked away with their pay and bonuses intact. Those who had worked for them were left to suffer without.

[Jim Shannon]

Not only that, but a number of small companies suffered. People with their own businesses had to sell their properties and businesses, because they honoured the debt while others did not.

[Richard Thomson]

The hon. Member makes an extremely powerful point, which gets to the heart of the issue: those responsible for the waves of financial chaos that result from a corporate failure are not the ones who pay the price. Often, those who can afford to lose the least end up losing the most, whether that is their homes or their livelihoods. In 2020, two years on from the collapse, the assistant general secretary of the trade union Unite said that the UK’s accounting and audit system was clearly “not fit for purpose” and accused the Government of failing, even then, to demand reforms, because of their “many friends” among the major accountancy firms.

While the recent launch of the Financial Reporting Council consultation on its proposed changes to the UK corporate governance code was welcome, serious questions need to be asked about why that has taken so long so far. Frankly, the Government must get a move on with the reforms to ensure that they lead to a prompt, substantive and enforceable change of the landscape, so that the culture of corporate backscratching —if I may put it that way—that led to the Carillion collapse is left as a dim, distant and not-too-pleasant memory.

Robust deterrents are also required to ensure that where criminality is involved, those responsible—whether they are company owners or directors—and enablers are caught and receive proportionate sanctions for their actions. Culpable directors, senior managers and other enablers of economic crime need to face proportionate sanction, and the rules on anti-money laundering supervision need to be applied consistently.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Member mentions criminality. I am flicking through Prem Sikka’s report, and I forgot to mention the section on Companies House. Previously, in the exposure of Magnolia Fundaction UK, an Italian fraudster who was one of the directors had registered himself—hardly fraudulently—as the “chicken thief”, with his occupation as “fraudster”, while another officer gave his address as the “Street of the 40 Thieves” in the town of “Ali Babba”. The issues at Companies House need to be addressed. I am interested to hear how much that will be addressed by the Minister.

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the right hon. Member for highlighting a particularly egregious example of hiding in plain sight. I will come on to mention some of the reforms that need to take place at Companies House.

To go back to the anti-money laundering supervision, there are clearly some significant holes in the AML framework, as well as a pretty patchwork approach to supervision, which varies significantly across companies and sectors. The non-governmental organisation Spotlight on Corruption noted that some 22 industry bodies oversee anti-money laundering compliance across the legal and accountancy sectors, which seems far too many to be doing the job effectively. With 22 supervisory organisations, a few gaps are bound to creep in somewhere.

In 2021, the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, or OPBAS, found that only 15% of supervisors were effective in using predictable and proportionate supervisory action. OPBAS also found that only 19% had implemented an effective, risk-based approach to supervision, so the system is clearly not working. In the UK, an estimated £88 billion of dirty money is cleaned by criminals every year, compared with £54.5 billion in France and £51.3 billion in Germany. I know money launderers are consistently evolving their practice and that pace needs to be kept, but trying to supervise it across 22 bodies with those low levels of effective frameworks in place does not seem to be making the best impact possible on that trade and the other criminal activities that it promotes. Putting adequate resources into tackling economic crime not only pays for itself, it provides additional resources for public spending and reduces criminality across a broad spectrum of activities.

On Companies House specifically, Transparency International recently found that 14% of all LLPs incorporated show money laundering red flags. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill had the opportunity to be a strong first line of defence in tackling that at the earliest opportunity, but unfortunately it did not provide the scale of reforms needed to ensure that the registrar could effectively tackle economic crime. Low registration fees in the UK and the quick turnaround clearly do not lend themselves to robust scrutiny by the registrar, as we heard in the example given by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). It is exemplified by the inclusion of a warning at the top of the Companies House website that states that it does not

“verify the accuracy of the information”

filed. Well, it seems to me that that is something it very much should be doing.

The SNP tabled amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill that would have introduced more stringent requirements for company directors, including one to limit the number of directorships that an individual could hold. We put forward amendments for directors in breach of duties, which would prevent directors who failed to comply with their tax obligations from being able to receive public funds, except for the purpose of paying staff. We were vocal on the issue of phoenixing, where directors of companies that go insolvent then open up a new company that is effectively the same as the one that went under.

We are used to amendments to Bills falling flat on their face. That seems to be the fate of Opposition parties who table amendments, whether they are the third party or the official Opposition, but it was particularly disappointing that nothing to pick those ideas up was reflected in what came through in the Bill, because ensuring that information is correct at that early point would ultimately help to prevent companies from engaging in money laundering, other forms of economic crime and other dubious activities or from evading their corporate governance responsibilities, which causes the damage we have heard about. With adequate resourcing, that is a task that Companies House is more than capable of fulfilling.

To draw my remarks to a close, we need robust supervision of directors and proper deterrents in place against negligence and malfeasance. We need further reform and increased resourcing for Companies House. Above all, we need to create a culture of honesty, transparency and compliance, which in good times and especially in bad is as fair and beneficial to all as it is possible to be. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say about those points when he takes to his feet.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (First sitting)

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Sure, okay. Mr Upton, on subscription traps, do you not feel that the powers that the Bill affords the CMA on civil penalties will address some of the concerns you highlight of people trying to get around the rules, for example? Would that not be something it could act on when it sees gratuitous behaviour such as what you describe?

Matthew Upton: I think it could, but we worry that it will not in reality. It is quite difficult to decide, for example, what constitutes easy and timely exit from a contract. You cannot necessarily measure it incredibly specifically, and I could imagine enforcement being really complicated. I could imagine firms dragging their feet, despite the way powers would speed up the ability of the CMA to act, as I say, because the incentive structure is so great.

One reason for the growth of the subscription economy is that it is a great way to provide services, but another is that it is such an easy way to make money by trapping people in. That is our firm belief and what our evidence shows. I just think a simple default would be much more effective than basically having the CMA chasing its tail and chasing firms. It would not be of any detriment to good firms who want to provide really solid subscriptions that people should want to stay in.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Q The EU has a right to redress for consumers, and there is a schedule in the Bill that would allow the Secretary of State to introduce that again in future through secondary legislation. Do either of you have any sort of sense of the extent to which UK consumers might be at risk of being at detriment compared with their EU counterparts while that secondary legislation is not in place?

Rocio Concha: Our view is that it should be on the face of the Bill. We do not know why the right to redress has not been transposed into the Bill. From our perspective, we do not want to leave it for the Secretary of State to decide once we have an Act. It should be included.

The other thing is that the right of redress does not cover all the practice in schedule 18, only misleading practice and aggressive practice. It does not really cover all the list of unfair practice in schedule 18. I think that the right to redress should also cover that.

[Richard Thomson]

Q On fake reviews, the challenge that came up at Second Reading was about how we might define, judge and act on them. How do you think it is best to tackle the problem of fake reviews? Have you any suggestions while we are engaged in this consultation?

Rocio Concha: You mean how—

[Richard Thomson]

How could we legislate create the framework by which the problem of fake reviews could be best addressed?

Rocio Concha: I think it needs to be in the list on schedule 18, and there is a very simple way to draft that amendment. We are going to suggest an amendment to help you with that, so I do not think that it is a major difficulty to include it on the face of the Bill.

[Dean Russell]

Q You are both at the coalface for consumers in terms of the challenges around all the issues addressed by the Bill. Can you briefly share some real-life examples of why the Bill is so important and what difference it will make to consumers?

Rocio Concha: I can give you some examples from the past so that you can see what consumers face. I already talked about the secondary ticketing problem, but I will give you another example. During covid, there were a lot of issues about people getting their refunds that they were entitled to by law. Many people could not really get them. I will give you another example on the digital side—that was on the consumer side.

At the moment, as you have heard from the CMA, digital advertising is basically controlled by two companies, Google and Facebook. Google has doubled its revenue from digital advertising since 2011 and Facebook used to make less than £5 per user—more recently, it has been around £50 per user. Google charges around 30% more for paid-for advertising than other search engines. All that cost translates into the products that we buy. We expect that once this pro-innovation, pro-competitive regulatory framework is put in place we will see it translate into prices.

We will also see it translate into more choice, in particular on data. At the moment, it is very difficult for consumers to have a choice on how much of our data is used for targeted advertising. You will have seen examples of that. When we talk to consumers in particular on the issues surrounding data, they feel disempowered. When we talk to consumers about the problems that they face in some of the markets where there are high levels of detriment, they also feel disempowered.

Matthew Upton: To be clear, there is a lot of good in the Bill. I echo Rocio’s first comments that there are a lot of positives. It has been a long time coming, and is a testament to the civil servants in the Department who have stuck with it. The main lens through which we see the impacts of the potential changes in the Bill is the cost of living. It is not exactly headline news that people are struggling with their bills. One of the main measures that we look at is whether one of our clients is in a negative budget: whether their income meets their essential outgoings. About 52% of our debt advice clients can no longer meet their essential—not desirable—outgoings with their income.

There are two areas where the Bill can make a real difference. One of the frustrations is that a debt adviser will go in detail through someone’s income and where they spend their money, helping them to balance their bills, and so on. You see the impact of other Government interventions, such as energy price support, putting money in their pockets and uprating benefits. You are combing through their expenditure and you find something like a subscription trial taking £10 a month—a huge amount for a lot of our clients—unnecessarily out of their account. They did not even know that it was there. Often, it is people who are not online, are not savvy, and are not combing their bills every month because they have a lot on. That is hugely frustrating, and things like this, especially if strengthened, could tackle that.

You will see similar things where people are just about balancing their monthly income with their expenditure and they get hit by some big scam bill or are let down by a company. Such companies are too often not held to account in the right way. It is a bit of a tangential example in some ways, but the hope is that the CMA’s increased ability to act and, in effect, to disincentivise poor behaviour towards consumers will lessen such instances as well.