Education, Skills and Training

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes, indeed. That is why I have just written to the director of fair access, Les Ebdon, giving him all the political cover that he needs to drive further progress in widening participation at the most selective institutions.

We are strengthening the system of access agreements. They will now cover both access and participation, so that students receive the support that they need right the way through their courses, not just at the point of entry. We will give the new director of fair access and participation, who will be part of the new office for students, a greater set of sanctions to help to ensure that universities deliver the agreements they have made with him.

Some students face additional barriers to accessing higher education because their religious beliefs mean they are unable to take on interest-bearing loans. That is why, subject to Parliament, we will be the first Government to introduce an alternative student finance product that will support those students into higher education. That, combined with other measures, will help us to meet our goal of increasing the number of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds—one third of whom are Muslim—who go to university. We are committed to an increase of 20% in the number of BME students by 2020.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will know that I have been writing to his Department since 2010 about sharia-compliant loans. The thing that is missing for students, who are absolutely put off by the failure to provide this product, is a timetable for making such loans available. He has committed to legislation, but will he now set out a timetable for when, if the legislation is enacted, students in communities such as mine in Walthamstow will be able to access these products?

[Joseph Johnson]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her contribution to the campaign for this important alternative finance product. The coalition Government were the first to consult on the potential demand for such a product. We have a legislative vehicle with which to introduce it, and we are moving at full speed. The sooner Labour Members let this Bill through the Houses of Parliament, the sooner we will be able to crack on and deliver the alternative finance product that they want to see.

In the reforms we are already making to part-time and postgraduate study, we are sending a clear message to people that it is never too late to learn. The Government are transforming the funding landscape for part-time and postgraduate study. We are, for the first time, introducing maintenance loans for part-time undergraduate students, in addition to the tuition fee loans that were made available in the previous Parliament. We continue to reverse Labour’s restriction on studying for a second degree, so that people can get a student loan to take a second part-time degree in a STEM subject. For the first time, we are introducing student finance for postgraduate study, where people from disadvantaged backgrounds are even more under-represented than at undergraduate level. This one nation Conservative Government are giving people the opportunities they need to gain new skills at every stage of their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who made passionate speeches about the importance of our young people.

It is difficult to discuss skills and education and the Queen’s Speech, given what is going to happen on 23 June —which is not so much the elephant as the circus in the room—and the effect it will have on the choices we make, but I am going to give it a go. It is remarkable to hear this Government now saying that increasing the life chances of the most disadvantaged is a priority for them. Given the choices they have made over the past five years, that is like a dentist offering someone anaesthetic after he has taken out their wisdom teeth for no reason.

“Life chances” is one of those phrases that we often use but seldom define, but definition and detail matter, as does determination—the determination to do what it takes to ensure that every person from every background has every opportunity to achieve their potential. I want to set out my fears about how, in today’s ever-changing world, we are running out of time to acknowledge that that means doing things completely differently.

Everyone in this House is proud of the young people we represent. We see their ability and the factors that make the difference between them realising it and wasting it. I do this job because I think that somewhere in my community is a kid who could cure cancer, if only they had the right opportunities to unlock their talents. Imagine how we would all benefit if that happened. That is where we come in: our job is to make sure that they have those pathways to be the kinds of people they can be and change all our lives.

That is where this Queen’s Speech misses the mark. We act as if opportunity is the ladder we have all known and that, to improve life chances for all, we simply need to get more of the next generation to repeat the same steps we took—go to school, go to university and settle into a career. If we are honest, we will admit that it was not that simple or open for us. Most of us can point to the points in our lives when we had a helping hand up that ladder, including good parents, good teachers and good networks. They all opened doors closed to others, by which I mean not just schools and universities, but internships and job interviews, too. The world is changing so quickly that if we are really to change the life chances of today’s 15-year-olds, we need to do more than open up the old boys’ or old girls’ network. We need to see opportunity as less a ladder than a maze, with many different doors, directions and routes to take.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Is it not the case that to give young people opportunity we really need more good and outstanding schools, producing fantastic standards, so that they can go on and fulfil their dreams? That is what we need, and that is what the Government are delivering, is it not?

[Stella Creasy]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue, I hope I will convince him to think bigger. When I was involved in the scouts, we always said that the key to understanding youth work was to recognise that although everybody has been a 15-year-old, not everybody has been a 15-year-old in today’s world. If we really want to improve the life chances of today’s young people, they do not just need our help to get them a job. They do not seek an industry or a profession. They live in a world in which, it is predicted, they will hold seven different careers, two of which are yet to be invented.

Each generation has faced change, but this generation will see it not just in their lifetime, but within a decade. The real challenge to their future prospects is not Romanian immigrants, but robots. Just as Friends Reunited was overtaken by Facebook, so technology is replacing not just manual labour but skilled labour—prescriptions filled, legal forms checked, cars driven and retail services replaced. It is a time of peril and potential: adapt or fall behind. There is little certainty to be had and little time to catch our breath. But the fact that the world moves so quickly means that people can keep learning new skills or reapplying those that they have to the new opportunities that arise. There are more second chances than ever before.

Not only are we failing the next generation by not acting to help them to navigate the world that is to come, but I fear that the measures in the Queen’s Speech could reinforce the inequalities that already define life chances for so many. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has demonstrated that graduates from richer family backgrounds earn significantly more than their less wealthy counterparts, even when they take similar degrees from similar universities.

That is not just happening at university. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that even at good and outstanding schools, there are large attainment gaps between rich and poor students. The OECD states that of all the countries it surveyed, the UK has the biggest gap in literacy and problem-solving skills between 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education or employment and young employed people. Our failure to teach skills that can be transferred and that are relevant in the modern world means that too many of our young people are struggling not just in their home territory but against their European, Chinese and south American counterparts. That is not because we are members of the European Union, but because of their very British education.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, we face the biggest skill shortage for 30 years. We have growing inequality and an outdated idea of what would fix these issues. The choices made in this Queen’s Speech about what to offer our young people give them little to prepare them for the world to come. At best, those choices will work for only a minority of young people unless they are independently wealthy—beneficiaries of the bank of mum and dad.

The education Bill is a case in point, with its obsession with turning every school into an academy, rather than turning every young person into an achiever. It works against partnership, isolating schools rather than linking them with local businesses and local communities. The Higher Education and Research Bill will put more resource into the “ladders” approach just when young people need more access—to apprenticeships, to further education and to paid internships—to open other doors. The Bill comes at the same time as the area-based review of further education seeks to close down those institutions.

Although the Government’s restatement of their commitment to sharia-compliant loans is welcome, if we fail to deal with the inequalities in resource that affect the poorest in our society in the early years, those people will continue to get a worse deal than their more affluent counterparts even if they make it to the same schools and universities.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for tackling some of the inequalities in our education system. She will know of the huge benefits that were derived from the London challenge. Does she recognise that that model ought to be replicated outside London, in places such as Greater Manchester? Indeed, a Greater Manchester challenge was created, but one of the first acts of this Government was to scrap it.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are good opportunities to create a change in results to the benefit of young people, but the Government seem to have missed them. The student loan book is bust, and university is not the only door in the maze that our young people can open to unlock their potential. We should be asking the difficult question: why, in a time of tight resources, are young people who make it through their A-levels offered a loan to go to university, but we have nothing to offer those who have a great business start-up idea? When 30% of Britain’s young people want to start a business, perhaps wanting to be the Jay-Z or the Jamal Edwards of their time, we ignore their potential—the doors they want to be opened—at our peril. This Government are focusing on the 50% of kids who do the things we see as important, not the 100% of kids who need access to the bank of mum and dad to succeed.

Money and contacts matter, as does flexibility, but none of these pieces of legislation will fundamentally tackle the inequalities that too many in our country face in accessing such skills and real-life work experience. We need to bring together not just the institutions, but the networks that can help our young people to thrive in the world to come. Ministers may tell me that the answer to the first point is their savings plan in the Queen’s Speech and all such proposals. It is certainly true to say, “Save more and you can make more choices about studying”, but lifetime ISAs will mean nothing to families who have no savings at all—those who have no spare money in the week, let alone the month.

In 2010, I stood in the Chamber and fought for the child trust fund to be saved. It was a scheme proven to help those from the poorest income backgrounds the most. In 2020, the first of them will mature, giving all 18-year-olds something—perhaps not much, but something. Instead, with the lifetime ISA, such inequalities in wealth will become even more about the difference between having money to spare and having no money at all.

Recent research shows that the bank of mum and dad bails out grown-up children an average of four times, to the value of £6,000, even after they have left home. Indeed, one in three parents have been left cash-strapped after lending money to their children. One in seven parents have had to borrow money themselves to bail out their grown-up children. This Government are reinforcing inequality, wasting potential and failing one generation while locking another into debt to try to help them. If we want to stop lagging behind our counterparts, if we really want to give our children more life chances, if we want to benefit from their potential, we have to learn to compete in the global economy, not to capsize, and that means taking a completely different approach.

Instead of what this Government are doing, we need to bring different services together. We need to link universities, businesses, schools, further education colleges and communities, not segregate them. We need to break down the old divisions between education and working life, and between conventional academic achievement and lifelong employability. We need to move away from teaching functional skills that are outdated almost as soon as they are learned. Instead, our young people need real-world learning experiences and transferable talents, such as complex problem-solving and team-working skills, much as the hon. Member for Chippenham set out. We need fundamentally to rethink how we spend resources and share them, offering loans and support not just to 50% of young people, but to 100% of them. That will end their need to have the bank of mum and dad on their side if they are going to survive the 21st century.

I therefore urge Ministers not to assume that their own life choices should define the life chances we offer all young people, but I fear that plea will fall on deaf ears. That is why this Queen’s Speech proves that, under this Government, we will always be a nation playing catch-up with our present, not shaping our own future—getting the public further into debt to keep going, not to get going, and making the bank of mum and dad the only hope to the detriment of too many and to the cost of us all.

National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I have made it clear that if any individual complaint is to be assessed for its validity, HMRC needs to be able to follow it up. I have also made it clear that in sectors of concern, HMRC undertakes targeted enforcement activity that does not wait for a complaint. It will be listening to this debate.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister said that it is ultimately a growing, dynamic economy that should give people confidence about being able to find well paid jobs, but good employment practices and legislation also give them confidence. One issue that is greatly worrying a number of residents in my constituency is the use of tips and service charges to top up wages and the murky world of requirements used by employers such as Turtle Bay, a local restaurant. Will the Minister meet me and some of the campaigners from the GMB union to look into these practices further? I know he has recently conducted an investigation, but it would be incredibly beneficial to those on low wages in my local community to look at how these practices are used to top up wages or otherwise, especially ahead of the new higher minimum wage that he has talked about.

[Nick Boles]

In my experience the hon. Lady is often on to things before the rest of us, so I would be delighted to meet her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking in the education system to support children and young people with mental health issues.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What assessment she has made of the effect of child and adolescent mental health services on the health, wellbeing and performance of young people in schools and colleges.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

11. What plans the Government has to improve mental health in schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I absolutely do recognise that the partnerships between health and education are vital in getting the right mental health support to children quickly. I welcome the initiatives that have been established in Macclesfield. We believe that the significant investment of £1.4 billion in children and young people’s mental health services that this Government have announced will make a real difference. I am delighted that there are so many questions on children’s mental health in this session today.

[Stella Creasy]

A parent of a young girl in Walthamstow suffering from an eating disorder recently wrote to me giving a harrowing account of the struggle to get support for her daughter. She suggested that one of the things that would make a difference would be for child and adolescent mental health services to have a presence directly in schools so that they could intervene earlier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) pointed out, we know from the IFS that real-terms funding for schools is going to be cut for the first time since the 1990s. What can the Secretary of State say directly to my constituent to reassure her that every young person will have access to mental health services directly in their schools so that such situations can be avoided in future?

[Nicky Morgan]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We all, as constituency MPs, hear these heart-rending stories. I, too, have had parents in my constituency bring to my attention cases of eating disorders among young people. I mentioned the £1.4 billion that the Government have already introduced, a significant sum of which is being spent this year on supporting young people with eating disorders. We are also contributing £1.5 million to a pilot with NHS England to train single points of contact in schools and specialist mental health services so that those services work well together to ensure that schools, which do not necessarily have mental health experts trained in that area, know exactly who to go to and how to get help for their pupils.

Draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 General Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I start, Mr Hamilton, by echoing the Minister’s comments—not, alas, about brevity, but about serving under your chairmanship? It is the first time for me, but I hope it will not be the last. I hope that all members of the Committee have come back from their holidays refreshed and raring to go. Unlike the Minister, I am excited by the opportunity to debate consumer rights legislation, having devoted a considerable amount of time to it during the last Parliament—dare I say that my application to “Mastermind” with this as a specialist subject is in train?

I can see that nobody else here had the pleasure of serving on the Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee and debating at such length the exciting subject of our rights and responsibilities under consumer legislation. With that in mind, let me offer the Committee the Opposition’s take on these two orders. We do not oppose them, but we have some questions. It would be helpful if the Minister looked into them and gave us some explanation, given the debates we had in the previous Parliament. I am sure that he read all the Consumers Rights Public Bill Committee discussions in detail; dare I say that that will be his “Mastermind” test for today?

The draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 deals with the sharing of enforcement powers. As the Minister acknowledged, it covers the legislation on ticket touting. No Member here can fail to be aware of just how strong the debates about ticket touting were. A number of Members from across the House debated and raised concerns about ticket touting—particularly about the links between ticket touting and organised crime—and the number of people being ripped off by touts. Therefore, it was welcome that the Government eventually gave in and put measures in the Consumer Rights Act to try to address the challenge of ticket touting. This order looks at one of the provisions around the enforcement powers, particularly information sharing for public agencies.

Members who were in the House during the previous Parliament will recall that a lot of our debates were about the lack of information that made ticket touting possible—the opaqueness about what was being sold and the difficulties faced by enforcement agencies in being able to pursue those selling tickets and ripping off consumers.

Chapter 5 of part 3 of the Consumer Rights Act is enacted by this order. Therefore, it would be helpful to hear a little more from the Minister about how the Act will be made real. Having talked to a number of organisations campaigning against ticket touting and affected by the industry, I am concerned to note that they have yet to receive any guidance from the Minister as to the pursuance of this statutory instrument. As the Minister said, the Consumer Rights Act will come into force in a couple of weeks’ time. This order contains requirements about information sharing, but it does not set out what information should be shared or the powers that enforcement agencies will have to address such issues.

For this side of the Committee, this fits into a wider point. The Minister committed to a review of the secondary market as part of the legislation. That legislation was passed in March and there was a commitment that the review would happen within a year. We are yet to hear when the review will happen and what issues it will cover. One of the Minister’s colleagues in another Department suggested that ticket prices should be set by supply and demand, under secondary ticket touting. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the concern has always been that there was not a fair supply of tickets within the ticket touting industry, and that was causing the problem for consumers.

How does the Minister think information-sharing powers will help to tackle the issues around ticket touting and to identify people who are ripping off consumers? What does that mean for the review of ticket touting that the Government promised within a year of the legislation being enacted? I am concerned to read in the explanatory memorandum that no impact assessment has been made of the information-sharing powers. If one of the concerns that the ticketing and entertainment industries had about the powers was about the impact of the legislation on their ability to deal with requirements for tickets effectively, then surely such information sharing would have an impact. Surely the Minister would expect enforcement agencies to be able to use that information to identify those ripping off consumers and that would have an impact—hopefully a positive one. I would therefore be interested to hear why no impact assessment has been made. Given the cross-party agreement that we needed to tackle ticket touting, perish the thought that what he is now introducing is a dog without teeth.

The second statutory instrument deals with the Enterprise Act 2002, and we have some more substantial concerns about that. I am sure the Minister will remember the detailed conversations we had with one of his predecessors about that Act—in particular, about how we ensure that all consumers are protected equally.

The Consumer Rights Act seeks to simplify the ways in which people can use their rights and responsibilities. It draws on the idea that if someone understands their rights in one sector, they will be able to apply them across all sectors. When that legislation was being drafted, we had a severe concern that particular types of consumers were being excluded from it, in particular air and rail passengers. At the time, the Minister in charge of the Bill told us that we should raise those concerns on this very statutory instrument if equivalent powers were not provided under the national conditions of carriage legislation.

It was therefore with a little sadness that I noted that the Minister wrote to us on 29 July to say that, contrary to the assurances given to us during that legislative process that equal rights to a reasonable service, within a reasonable timescale and at a reasonable price would be translated to passengers as well as other consumers, that was not to be applied and passengers were to be excluded. Therefore, in the context of this statutory instrument, they are excluded from the provision that allows for a market-wide survey to be carried out if there is concern that the collective interest is being breached.

What does that mean in layman’s terms? If we thought that passengers were being ripped off, the Competition and Markets Authority could not investigate, and neither could the Office of Rail Regulation. Why does that matter? I am sure that all of us here have had complaints from people about services, and rail services and planes in particular, but if this statutory instrument is enacted as it stands, those consumers will not have the same rights. Will the Minister tell us how he sees that conflict being resolved? The Opposition are particularly concerned about the levels of compensation offered to consumers when their rail journeys are delayed or they receive a poor service, such as when disabled passengers cannot get on to trains because of poor quality provision and people experience a range of refund systems with different train companies when their services are delayed.

There is strong evidence that the number of complaints about rail passenger services is going through the roof. Surely that is a good indication that it would be right to take a look at the whole market and the ways in which different train companies respond. As part of the campaigning I have been doing, I had a delayed train journey and found that I got a different type of refund—a train voucher—rather than my money back. Under the Consumer Rights Act, I would be entitled to a refund, but the national conditions of carriage allow for the train company to give me a train voucher, which means that I have another ticket for the train company that cannot run a train on time.

Were I to be sold a faulty good or service in another part of my life, I could ask for the equivalent of my money back or a refund under the new Consumer Rights Act, but because the Government have excluded passengers from the legislation and are delaying the point at which that conflict might be resolved, the powers to be enacted by this statutory instrument will not allow the Competition and Markets Authority to look at why passengers get such a raw deal when it comes to compensation. Therefore, as a passenger, I will not get the protection that this SI offers me in other areas of my life.

Does the Minister agree that passengers deserve a better system of compensation for a poor standard of rail services, and that it is a priority for him and his Department to resolve the conflict that the statutory instrument will create whereby those consumers will not be afforded the protection of a market-wide study into that area, which they would get in other areas? If he does not agree, will he explain why he thinks the compensation systems that passengers can currently access are acceptable, even though there is a conflict with the Consumer Rights Act? Given that he wrote to us to say that there would be a delay, when does he expect passengers to get the decent right of return we are talking about?

We agree with the Minister that these are technical issues, but passengers—including me over the summer and many of our constituents—who find themselves waiting for delayed trains or in overcrowded carriages, unable to get a seat, should expect clarity from us on their rights and how they can exercise them. There is a risk that the order will not give them the same protection that they receive in other parts of their lives, and I am sure we would all agree that that is not the intention. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Member for Walthamstow has demonstrated to the entire Committee that she does not need any time to get warmed up at the start of a new parliamentary session. I will try to answer her questions as best as I can, although some of them might, understandably, have strayed into a discussion of the fundamental principles of legislation, rather than the precise and technical implementation of the orders before the Committee. I hope that you will not mind if I stick rather more narrowly to the question before the Committee, Mr Hamilton.

The hon. Lady first asked about the secondary ticketing review and when we might announce when it will be launched. It has taken a bit of time to discuss the appointment of the chair of the review with interested parties and to agree on the precise date of the launch, but we have made good progress in establishing the terms of reference. We have been talking closely with key stakeholder representatives, and we have been trying to identify the best possible candidates for the shortlist for the skilled chair and for members of the expert group. That obviously needs to be discussed by my Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we expect to be able to launch the review and announce the chairman relatively soon. That review will then be able to address many of the issues that the hon. Lady raised. It is of course the case—I hope this provides some reassurance to the Committee—that the rules applying to the resale of tickets on online secondary platforms came into force on 27 May 2015. The review will follow, but those rules are already in force.

The hon. Lady asked why we were delaying the implementation of the provisions for transport sectors—

[Stella Creasy]

Before the Minister moves on, the draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 refers to the enforcement powers of agencies around ticket touting. The rules on what ticket providers should provide have already been published, but the order gives enforcement agencies the power to act across borders. For example, if I bought a ticket to see a band, wherever I had bought that ticket online, there would be an expectation that it would be a fair ticket at a fair price, with the relevant information and the unique identifier. If that were not the case, Trading Standards in another part of the country—wherever that ticket was being sold—could act. The Minister is talking about the review, so will he clarify why he does not think this change will have an impact on the industry? Being able to share information in that way is quite a substantial change, so why—I did ask this previously—has no impact assessment been made for this order?

[Nick Boles]

A full impact assessment was completed for the Bill, and the review will be able to look into any further issues that are within its terms of reference. I do not believe that a specific impact assessment of the information-sharing powers that the hon. Lady referred to is necessary. The information sharing will differ in each investigation, and it will simply not be possible to identify a single level of impact. If she wants to write to me to make the argument for that impact assessment, I would be happy to go into the matter in more detail and respond in writing.

Moving on, the hon. Lady asked about the delay in implementing the provisions for three transport sectors: mainline rail, maritime and aviation. We created that delay because we want to consult widely with the industries and other interested parties to gather information on the consumer protection available in those sectors. That is down to the simple fact that those sectors are mostly run with elaborate and advanced sector-specific schemes. We want to assess whether it would be appropriate to apply the provisions in full to those sectors or whether it would be appropriate to make an exemption from the Consumer Rights Act to enable transport providers to continue to pay compensation for delays and cancellations under their sector-specific schemes rather than under the terms of the Act. We make no judgment about what the result of those consultations will be. We reserve absolutely the possibility of applying the Act to those sectors, but we have concluded, based on conversations with the industry, that it is right to explore the situation further before applying the provisions. Obviously we did not want to hold back the application of those provisions to other sectors, which is why we have made an exemption for these sectors today.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for saying that, but it is a bit of a surprise to those of us who were on the Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee and heard specific assurances from the previous Government that they would offer equivalent protection. I shall give an example of the difference we might see. Over the summer, my rail journey was delayed and the rail company gave me a rail voucher. Under the Consumer Rights Act, I could ask for my money back, rather than be given a ticket to use with the same rail company. Is the Minister saying that he is comfortable for the train and aeroplane companies to dictate to passengers what appropriate compensation is? In other areas, there is equal protection for all consumers—I could ask for my money back, if that was what I wanted. If he is not offering equivalent protection, passengers will continue to get what companies want them to have, rather than what they are entitled to do.

[Nick Boles]

I obviously was not clear, but I will try to be clearer. I am not saying what the conclusion of the further consultation with those industries and other interested parties, including the hon. Lady, will be. I am saying that we will take a bit more time to have those conversations and understand whether there are arguments for allowing sector-specific compensation schemes to continue to operate in those sectors or whether they should come under the full provisions of the Consumer Rights Act, as she has ably advocated. There is no concluding position; there is a conversation with the industry and other interested parties to gather evidence. She is urging further impact assessments on us, so I hope that she will not criticise us for seeking evidence before applying provisions to those sectors.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am not going to give way again on that point; we have discussed it pretty fully.

[Stella Creasy]

There was a promise. Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will give way one last time.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. The shadow Minister needs to keep her comments brief for an intervention.

[Stella Creasy]

I want to push the Minister. Promises were made to the House during the passage of that legislation, which is why the second statutory instrument is so important. We were assured that passengers would get equivalent protection and that that would include the ability for the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct investigations. If he is excluding particular groups, then the provisions of this SI will also be excluded. That is a serious change to the assurances that we were given during the passage of the legislation. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?

[Nick Boles]

I am afraid that the Minister cannot confirm that any of the things the hon. Lady says are the case, because we have not decided anything specific on this issue. We have decided not to apply the provisions to those sectors at the moment, while we continue conversations with the industries and other interested parties, which includes the hon. Lady and anyone else. I would point out to her that it is possible to have equivalent levels of treatment without those levels of treatment being provided and arranged in entirely the same way. Although I agree that equivalence is always something to seek, I also believe that it is right to talk to industries that already operate arrangements, to understand whether there is a case for different treatment.

I have done my best to answer the questions raised by the hon. Lady. If she is unhappy with any of my answers, I am happy to go into more detail in writing.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will give the hon. Lady one last opportunity. She seems keen to have a last crack at it.

[Stella Creasy]

I am just curious; the Minister raises pertinent points about consulting with industries and ensuring that compensation and consumer rights fit well together, but can he explain why that did not happen during the passage of the Consumer Rights Act? From what he is saying, that was not the case. When we looked at the issue in Committee and asked about passenger rights, we were assured that those issues had been considered; he is now saying that that is not the case. Can he account for that variance in the stories being told to the House?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady is seeking to suggest that I have changed the Government’s policy. I would point out a couple of facts to her. First, this Government are not the previous Government—there was an election. Secondly, I was not the Minister then, Thirdly, I have made no statement that we are changing policy on this issue, but have simply said that we are not yet applying the particular, technical provisions of the regulations to the specified sectors while we conduct further conversations with the industry. If there is a change of policy relative to that discussed in the Public Bill Committee under the previous Government, we will bring that policy change to the House, and I have no doubt that she will subject it to her normal, inquisitorial treatment. However, we are not there yet, so I urge her to wait a little longer while we talk to the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have been advised by a scholarly source that “pullulating” means to breed rapidly or abundantly. We are immensely grateful to the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for his dexterity in the English language.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like me, the Minister will no doubt be concerned that only one in five of those new start-up businesses is led by women. I know that she is keen on Twitter accounts, but let me give her a better idea of something that her own Department came up with, although sadly her predecessors refused to implement. Will she commit to monitoring selling to businesses led by women in the supply chain, and help to get British women back into business?

[Anna Soubry]

We know that more women are employed now than ever before. Call me an old-fashioned feminist but—[Interruption.] I understand that Opposition Members could call me far worse than that. I support the many wonderful initiatives that have been introduced to encourage women to come into business and set up their own businesses. It is striking, however, that all the meetings I have had with big businesses have been very male-dominated. We find an abundance of women in the small business sector—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head but that is a fact, and that is because women have so much talent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

There has been a record number of start-ups across the country, but Brighton is a particular growth centre. The creative industries are very much at the heart of that, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like me to congratulate him on his own contribution to that.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

If women set up businesses at the same rate as men there would be 1 million extra entrepreneurs in this country, adding about £60 billion a year to our economy. What is stopping the Secretary of State putting into practice the Liberal Democrat Burt report recommendations on monitoring whether the Government are buying from women in their own supply chain to help to bridge that gap?

[Vince Cable]

I can cite a couple of examples of where we have consciously and successfully sought to promote women in business. The start-up loans scheme has a very high proportion of women entrepreneurs—off the cuff, I think it is 40% or more. Yesterday we launched, with the Cranfield business school, the report on the successful efforts to get women on the boards of our top companies. The target was set and it is very, very close to being achieved. I am sure the hon. Lady is happy to work with us in continuing a very important campaign.

Consumer Rights Bill (Carry-Over Extension)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I simply rise to agree that this is an important Bill, and we are looking forward to progress being made and the Government finally agreeing with us in the Lords on ticket touting. We look forward to its return to this House for us to approve it.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

rose—

Consumer Rights Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I came late to this debate and picked up on some interesting arguments being put by Members on both sides of the House. At first glance, my one concern about the amendments is that they do not seem to address some of the valid points about robots that have been raised by Members on both sides. I am sure that the Minister will want to address that point when she answers the debate.

One point that has not been raised about the nature of the free market and how it operates for secondary ticketing is that there is not an absolute property right to a ticket when it is sold, because it is not like any other good. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) mentioned second-hand cars, which someone might buy and then sell at a later date, but of course the ticket is merely a promise to provide a service or a piece of entertainment in a given period of time, and therefore the original vendor must retain some sort of property right. If the original vendor wishes to sell a ticket to someone at one price, perhaps because they are a certain age, come from a particular area or belong to a particular club, that vendor might still have some property rights that enable them to enforce the terms of that sale. I am sure that the Minister will want to address that issue as it pertains to the secondary market, because those people who sell tickets should be able to have some control at some point, if they wish, over who they sell those tickets to.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has been a year since we started to scrutinise the Bill, time during which much has changed, not least the Minister leading on it. As she can tell from today’s debate, she missed many treats during our debates, although I am not sure whether a repeat performance of the arguments made by the hon. Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) was what she intended to generate.

It has been a long journey and I pay tribute to all those Members who have sought to scrutinise and improve the legislation. Many debates have taken place to meet the test we set, as this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a nation that is on top of its rights and can play a full and active part in the market in both the public and private sectors. Labour certainly recognises that helping people to make the most of their money is vital in a country that is drowning in personal debt—£1.43 trillion of it. Little wonder that StepChange Debt Charity says that six out of 10 people in this country believe that politicians must do more in the next five years to help them stay out of financial difficulty. Making sure that they do not get ripped off should therefore be absolutely paramount in the work we do and in this Bill.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for tabling the amendment and for their perseverance on ticket touting, which is a clear example of people being ripped off. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bury North and for Shipley for their persistence in making their arguments and possibly making Friedrich Hayek spin in his grave through their interpretation of a free market. Let me deal with their arguments, because I think we will have to come back to them otherwise.

Few other markets would be characterised as free in which a limited number of sellers hoard a product, buying it up in bulk using underhand methods and then colluding to sell at hyped prices. Just because this is happening on the internet does not make it any different. One of the golden rules of the free market is that people should deal with each other honestly and require honesty in return, and that is clearly not what is happening in this industry. It is clearly not a free market. I am also delighted that both hon. Gentlemen outed themselves as fans of St Trinian’s, because that can be the only explanation of why they believe that this is about spivs in pork-pie hats looking at the types of shoes people are wearing rather than a billion-pound ticket-touting industry that is damaging the pockets of fans of sport and music.

One reason we support the amendment tabled by the all-party group on ticket abuse and reject the Government’s call to reject the cross-party call from the Lords to address this issue is that we do not agree with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that this is classic entrepreneurship, precisely because we know that it is not an open market. We know that botnets are hoovering up tickets the second they go on sale. Fans simply do not stand a chance.

Some estimates put the figure at 60% of tickets being taken up in this way. One expert looking at the sporting industry in the past year has identified around 30% of tickets being bought up in this way, so fans cannot click fast enough to beat the botnets. The Secretary of State challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West and said:

“The interests that the hon. Lady is representing are probably those of the chattering middle classes and champagne socialists”—

I noted that the hon. Member for Shipley called me a socialist earlier; I have amended my Twitter biography accordingly, with his praise—

“who have no interest in helping the common working man earn a decent living by acting as a middleman in the sale of a proper service.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 1187.]

This is no Flash Harry and this is no decent living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I am delighted to speak on the Bill for the first time—a Bill whose development and gestation took far longer than my pregnancy. Although the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) says that I missed many a treat, she does not know that I did watch Second Reading on BBC Parliament during my maternity leave, although I had to use the pause function occasionally. It seemed to have a fairly soporific effect on my son. Perhaps that is a tip for all new parents—the delights of BBC Parliament.

The debate often seems polarised, with on the one hand the advocacy of very prescriptive primary legislation to deal with the issues, and on the other, the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who argue that the free market is working perfectly and no intervention is required. I recognise that there are issues and difficulties. We have to find the best way forward to deal with those so that the interests of consumers are well looked after.

A careful balancing act is needed. We want to make sure that as many people as possible can access events, whatever their means. We want sports and entertainment in the UK to flourish. We have some of the best events and tournaments in the world, which bring in large numbers of international visitors and businesses. We also, of course, want to protect consumers and allow the ticket resale market to work as well as it can.

There has been an encouraging trend in recent years towards safer and more tailored online ticket marketplaces and away from the touts outside venues. These websites can offer much more consumer protection than was available before, often in excess of what the law requires. The sites have processes in place to try to prevent, discourage and punish fraud. Although no market is perfect, we know how much time, money and emotion fans invest in attending events, so we want fans, as consumers, to be able to operate safely in this market.

There are already protections in place for consumers. The consumer contracts regulations came into force just six months ago to ensure that consumers are fully informed before they buy from a trader. At the time, the Government announced guidance specifically on internet ticket sales to accompany those regulations, which build on existing law such as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which protect consumers from being misled by practices such as claiming that a seat is on the front row when it patently is not.

The regulations complement the Fraud Act 2006 and the Computer Misuse Act 1998, which list a range of offences available to law enforcement to tackle the fraudulent sale of tickets and the criminal harvesting of tickets from online ticket sales. Botnets and hacking into sites have been mentioned, but these proposals would not only cover cases of hacking. Botnets could also be illegal if, for example, they were being used to gain unauthorised access to a website that clearly states that it deals with real individuals.

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the law is properly enforced. We have a powerful economic crime command within the National Crime Agency to drive forward this work. We have invested about £86 million to build law enforcement capabilities to respond to cyber-crime, including online fraud. We have strengthened the reporting and intelligence arrangements for fraud. Action Fraud is now the single national reporting centre for fraud and financially motivated cyber-crime. Since 1 April last year, responsibility for Action Fraud rests with the City of London police, bringing it closer to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau.

The City of London police are also working with the organisation behind the rugby world cup to exclude participants in the ticketing lottery who have links with previous reports of fraud. In October last year, the police reported that they had foiled “hundreds” of fraudulent attempts to gain tickets via the official ballot. The Competition and Markets Authority and trading standards bodies lead consumer law enforcement in this area. Through their hard work, trading standards officers have successfully enforced consumer law—for example, right here in Westminster in reducing the number of consumers being caught out by bogus theatre tickets.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and Baroness Neville-Rolfe have previously set out the Government’s position. We do not think that there are no problems in this market, but we have to find the best way to tackle them.

In that context, I will set out the difficulties involved in Lords amendment 12. Although it purports to add further transparency requirements to protect consumers, it could have the opposite effect. It would mean that all sellers, whether as a business or as one friend selling to another, would have to provide detailed information about themselves and the ticket they were selling, including the seat number and the booking reference number. That would enable the event organisers to cancel tickets put up for resale, as is intended by the amendment. That would mean that a fan with a spare ticket, perhaps because their friend is ill, could not resell it without risking having all their tickets cancelled. Someone who had bought a resold ticket could arrive at the venue only to be refused entry on that basis. That does not seem very fair or proportionate.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister clarify two things? First, does she think that the amendment applies to individual-to-individual sales? It is actually aimed at the marketplace that secondary ticket sites create. Secondly, if she is worried about resales and tickets being cancelled, will she accept the amendment proposed by the all-party group, which would specifically deal with that to ensure that it does not happen?

[Jo Swinson]

I recognise the attempts made in that amendment, although they do not address all the difficulties that I have outlined. Many people who are unable to attend an event at short notice will find that they have another friend who is happy to go along to it with them, but others will not, so they will use online marketplaces, in which case these issues will apply.

One of the main difficulties with the Lords amendment is that it would require sellers to provide their name. That should raise concerns, because it would include private individuals who could be young people or vulnerable consumers. Perhaps a 14-year-old One Direction fan who is unable to attend the concert she has bought tickets for will want to resell them, and in doing so would have to provide her name online. This is a concern not about ticket sales but about things such as identity theft and the difficulties involved when private individuals have to place their names online. There were over 100,000 reports of ID fraud in 2013, and we do not want to support proposals that could—albeit inadvertently —push that number higher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I will come to enforcement, because I accept that there are issues that need to be looked at, but I want to complete my explanation of the difficulties with amendment 12.

There is a real risk that introducing these additional, more stringent information requirements would go beyond the provisions set out in the consumer rights directive, which EU law does not allow us to do. Compliance with EU law might be further harmed in relation to the technical standards and regulations directive. To comply with that directive, the amendment would have to be notified to the Commission at least three months before the Bill was due to finish its passage through Parliament, meaning that it remained in draft form during that standstill period. We have clearly run out of time for such steps to be taken now. The consequence, which I know the proposers of the amendment would not want, is that amendment 12 could end up being unenforceable if it were passed in its current form.

[Stella Creasy]

It is interesting that the Minister raises the EU directive, which talks about the importance of providing the characteristics of an item that is being sold. If the characteristics of a ticket are not to say where the event is, what time it is, and which seat it is, what does she think would be included under the directive?

[Jo Swinson]

Much of this information already has to be provided under the consumer contracts regulations, and that is absolutely fine. However, amendment 12 goes beyond that—for example, in requiring individuals to give their name. I do not think that people would wish to run the risk that it ended up being unenforceable, but unfortunately that is the legal situation.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) talks about stating the face value on the ticket. I understand what she is getting at, but this is not a particularly helpful concept to use in legislation because the face value is not clearly defined. A ticket does not necessarily have just one value—there may be delivery and administration charges, and the seller might not know which of those needed to be included in the face value. If the fan selling the ticket got that wrong, the ticket could end up being cancelled without their knowledge. The value stated on the ticket might not be what the fan paid because of the fan club or early-purchase discounts that have been discussed. People would not want consumers to lose money when they cannot attend an event, and the face value would not always cover what the consumer had actually paid.

There is a more substantive issue of principle. Is it right for Government to tell consumers that they cannot sell items that they have bought second-hand at above the price that they paid for them? If I buy a book for £4.99 and then a very popular film is made of it and a friend offers me £10 for the book, why should the Government get involved and say that it cannot be sold on?

Perhaps unintentionally, the amendment suggests that it is acceptable for an event organiser to cancel tickets that have been sold for above face value. Many hon. Members have addressed the issue of terms and conditions, and some have said that organisations should be able to cancel such tickets, but that would not necessarily always be a fair term. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, it would be up to a court to decide on a case-by-case basis, but it may not always be a fair term.

There are problems in the market—as is the case in any market—which is why we have listened and are taking action. We agree on many of the issues relating to consumer information, including consumers not knowing where to go to get redress when they have a problem with a resold ticket. Consumers sometimes raise concerns with event organisers when they should approach the online marketplace where they bought the tickets. Of course, that can be inconvenient and frustrating for both the organiser and the fans.

There is also a problem with bulk selling and the people who have been referred to as bedroom touts. Like the organisers, I am not comfortable that there are people who buy tickets as if they were real fans, but with the sole intention of reselling for a profit. I am, therefore, pleased to announce various actions that we have taken. We have been working closely with the secondary ticket marketplaces and continue to have constructive discussions with them and the event organisers.

The online ticket marketplaces have made a range of commitments, as outlined in the letters that have been placed in the Library of the House and are available from the Vote Office in the Lobby. They have committed to providing further information and transparency, to make sure that consumers have appropriate information. The commitment covers much of the information that Lords amendment 12 would require, but it will not breach EU rules, result in unintended consequences for privacy and fraud, or give event organisers the opportunity to cancel tickets put up for resale.

Secondly, the marketplaces have confirmed their commitment to consumer protection. When consumers have a problem with a ticket they have bought on an online marketplace, they should have access to redress. The marketplaces have set out the guarantees they provide to users and how they work to protect consumers. Thirdly, the marketplaces have committed to ensuring that consumers know where to go to get redress by providing the information prominently on their websites. Alongside those common commitments, they have committed to a range of different improvements specific to their individual sites. They are all welcome commitments.

In addition to the action taken by industry at a practical level, we want to ensure that the Government address the issues with an evidence-based approach. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has today launched an independent review of the effectiveness of the current law—and, indeed, what can be done to improve it. The review will survey enforcement of the current consumer law as it applies to online marketplaces as facilitators of transactions in tickets, and it will assess the challenges of enforcement of that law. We invite the review to suggest how that enforcement could be improved. That will include looking at how to tackle bulk selling, which has been raised by many Members today, and how to effectively enforce the law against traders impersonating consumers in order to evade consumer law.

I have written to trading standards to gather evidence on what more can be done to enforce consumer law as it applies to buyers and sellers of tickets. That will complement the DCMS review. To respond to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I have not yet received a response from trading standards, but I will, of course, keep the House informed.

Given the ongoing commitments to tackle the genuine issues, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 12 and the amendment to it, and to welcome the package of measures that I have announced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I am delighted that we are bringing the Bill back to the House in such good shape. There was a good debate in the other place and a number of amendments build on and improve the Bill. We listened to concerns in both Houses about consumers being out of pocket if they have to pay to return rejected goods, and as a result we agree that it is sensible to make it clear in the Bill that the trader bears responsibility for the reasonable costs of returning goods that have been rejected by the consumer. That provides clarity and sets a sensible balance between the parties, without causing significant burden to business.

The Bill has always contained a provision that if a consumer exercises the final right to reject, the trader may reduce the refund to take account of the use that the consumer has had of the goods, unless the goods are rejected in the first six months, in which case the general rule is that no deduction may be applied. That is intended to balance the interests of consumers and traders, and for that reason the Bill provides a limited exception to the general six-month rule. However, we understand the concern that that exception could be interpreted too broadly, and in response we have narrowed the exception to address specifically the impact on the motor industry.

The particular nature of motor vehicles may affect the balance between traders’ and consumers’ interests because cars are high-cost items that lose value quickly. They are also complex, so it is more likely that a car will develop two faults in the first six months than, for example, a piece of furniture. The option to make a deduction for use in the first six months is therefore particularly significant for traders in motor vehicles.

The amendments include a power to increase the scope of the exception if appropriate in future. We think that is important, as it is not possible to predict the goods and technologies that may develop. We are conscious of the need to reflect the dynamic nature of digital content. Many forms of digital content are not static products and change over time with updates to software and apps. The Bill provides that the digital content must meet the quality rights—satisfactory quality, being fit for a particular purpose and as described—following an update. We listened to concerns raised in the other place that as originally drafted the requirement could prevent traders from improving digital content or offering flexible products. That outcome would not be good for consumers, so we have clarified that the requirement does not prevent traders from adding new features or enhancing existing features, as long as the original description is still met.

We have amended the provision on digital content that causes damage to a consumer’s device or other digital content. That will allow traders to exclude or restrict their liability under the Bill for damage to the consumer’s device or other digital content, to the extent that it would be fair under the unfair terms provisions in part 2 of the Bill. That provision will apply even to free digital content, specifically when it causes damage and the consumer can show that the trader failed to use reasonable care and skill to prevent the damage occurring. We have clarified the maximum fining penalty that the regulator of premium rate services can impose on non-compliant and rogue operators, and we are making clear that where appropriate and proportionate, the regulator can impose the maximum fine for each contravention of the code. That maximum is £250,000, so in the event of a company making two serious contraventions of the code, the regulator could impose a fine of up to £500,000 if that was considered appropriate and proportionate.

We are determined to tackle the minority of rogue letting agents who offer poor service, and in Committee we added provisions to ensure transparency of letting agent fees, to give consumers the information they want while supporting good letting agents. It is important that that requirement comes into effect as soon as possible to ensure that tenants have certainty over the payments that they make, and for that reason we are putting the enforcement details in the Bill. We are also applying the duty on letting agents to publicise fees in Wales as well as England. That was requested by the Welsh Government and has the added advantage of minimising any cross-border enforcement problems.

Existing legislation requires landlords and letting agents acting on their behalf to protect the tenant’s security deposit. That is the most significant money likely to be held by an agent, but they might hold other money on their client’s behalf, which is why the Government already encourage agents to join client money protection schemes. Public awareness of that is not as high as we would like, so we are also requiring agents to state whether they are a member of a client money protection scheme.

From 1 October last year all letting agents and property managers must belong to one of our three approved redress schemes that provide tenants with an effective way to address complaints. We will now require letting agents to publicise which redress scheme they have joined. Those changes will level the playing field for agents by raising awareness of what best practice looks like, put downward pressure on fees, and provide consumers with the information they need without introducing significant new costs to the sector.

As set out in our 2011 White Paper on higher education, we are providing all higher education students who receive public support with access to external dispute resolution. That reflects the fact that increasingly, new and different providers are offering higher education, not just the traditional university sector, yet only a handful of alternative providers—seven in total—have so far voluntarily joined the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s complaints handling scheme. We are making it mandatory for alternative providers whose courses are designated for student support to join.

I convey my grateful thanks to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It published the outcome of its scrutiny on 11 July 2014, and I was delighted to accept its recommendations that the exercise of certain powers in the Bill be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as reflected in the amendments. We also addressed concerns that current provisions for the appointment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal—or CAT—effectively exclude judges from the Scottish Court of Session or the Northern Ireland High Court. We have now ensured that Lord Chief Justices of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Lord President of the Court of Session, may nominate any suitably qualified individual who is already a judge sitting in a relevant court to be deployed as a CAT chair.

We have improved provision for private actions in competition law. First, we are allowing the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA—to approve an outline of a voluntary redress scheme, and for the business to create a full scheme afterwards. That is part of a wider Government initiative to promote alternative dispute resolution, and it allows responsible businesses who wish to make redress to those they have wronged an avenue to do so. The amendment allows the CMA to impose conditions necessary to set up a full scheme. If those conditions are not complied with when the full scheme is set up, the CMA can withdraw approval or consider a revised scheme.

We are enabling provision to be made for claimants to incur costs if they apply to have the representative to the action removed but lose the application. That is in line with the wider “loser pays” principle that exists in domestic law, and should deter vexatious applications. The Government recognise that during collective proceedings, not all damages are claimed. Therefore the Bill makes provision that the CAT may award unclaimed damages from opt-out collective action proceedings to a prescribed charity—currently the Access to Justice Foundation. Although the body to receive unclaimed damages may be changed, we are ensuring that it must always be a charity.

The Bill consolidates and simplifies important provisions on investigatory powers of consumer law enforcers, and the Government greatly value the vital work that enforcers such as trading standards do in protecting consumers and legitimate businesses. We now require enforcers to give two days’ written notice for routine inspections, and we have set out clear exemptions to that. We are firmly underlining that provision by putting it beyond doubt that notice need be given only for routine inspections, which is when there is no reason to doubt that the business in question is operating properly without any significant breaches of legislation. We have committed to review the practical effect of the notice requirement within two years of the commencement of the Bill. As a result, we are confident that the powers and safeguards strike the right balance between protecting civil liberties, reducing business burdens, and ensuring effective enforcement, and I invite the House to agree with the amendments.

[Stella Creasy]

In the short time available let me say that I think we are looking at a form of alternative dispute resolution this evening, so let me first flag up the positive in terms of the customer service feedback we would like to give to the Government on these Lords amendments: we will be supporting all the Lords amendments. In particular, there are three that are worthy of consideration, following the rule about the six in 10 Britons who believe that politicians should do more in the coming years to help them stay out of financial difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. I hear complaints from my constituents about such websites. We have referred the issue to the Internet Governance Forum and convened a round table of digital traders to discuss strengthening terms and conditions, and we work with Nominet, the UK’s internet registry services provider, to look at ways of prohibiting the registration of such domain names.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I associate the members of the Opposition Business, Innovation and Skills Front-Bench team with the Secretary of State’s remarks? We wish you a happy new year, Mr Speaker, and express our sympathies to the families of those killed in Paris.

The Minister seems not to get the point. Many of those services are meant to be free, but the sites imply that people have to pay for them. The Mayor of London obviously does not believe that the Government’s action on copycat websites is good enough because he has introduced legislation to tackle rip-off congestion charge sites. Does the Minister believe the Mayor was right to do that? If so, why is what is good enough for London not good enough for the rest of the UK?

[Mr Vaizey]

I always support the Mayor of London, because he is one of the most brilliant Mayors of London this country has ever seen. He has frozen the Mayor’s precept and introduced Boris bikes. However, it took me an hour and 10 minutes to get to Westminster from Hammersmith on the tube, so perhaps today I am about 99% supportive of the Mayor rather than 100%.

I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment that we must stamp on these copycat websites. I progressed the issue myself because of complaints from my constituents. That is why I am so pleased that we have made progress with strengthening search engine terms and conditions and started to move away from copycat websites having prominence and seen an increase in people using Government websites.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Willott]

As the hon. Gentleman highlights, record numbers of women are setting up their own businesses. Female self-employment is growing at four times the rate of male self-employment. More than 6,000 female mentors are available to support entrepreneurs, such as his constituents, who want to set up and grow their own business. The Government have a wealth of information and advice available on gov.uk and the great business website to support people in the situation that he highlights.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister mentioned in passing the latest figures on women in boardrooms. In responding to those figures, the former Minister for Women, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), said that we need to be honest that the culture in Britain is not neutral to women and is still “white, male and heterosexual.” Does the Minister agree? If so, what message does she believe the reshuffle sends about changing the situation?

[Jenny Willott]

We would probably all agree that the gender and ethnic balance in boardrooms is not as we would like. However, significant progress is being made. At the start of this Parliament, about 12% of FTSE 100 board members were women. The figure is now more than 20% and we are on target to make that a quarter by the election. The Government are taking the matter seriously and working hard to change the culture throughout companies by introducing measures such as flexible working and shared parental leave, which send out the message that the Government think this issue is extremely important. We are working with employers to change the culture in businesses from top to bottom.