Brexit: Consumer Protection (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the report is headed Brexit: Will Consumers be Protected? This invites the response that of course they will, but the key question was posed by my noble friend Lord Judd: will they be protected as effectively as at present? Many of the concerns expressed today were also reflected in the debate we have just had on security. I have one general point and a number of subsidiary points.

First, I echo the comments of many colleagues. It has been a privilege to serve on a sub-committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who has led a very happy committee in an exemplary way. On Brexit, as a committee we have dealt with a number of issues. Apart from consumer protection, we have dealt with intellectual property and dispute resolution post Brexit. The common feature of these three recent inquiries is that all have a major impact on UK consumers. None played any serious role in the referendum campaign. None, initially at least, received any serious attention from the Government. Virtually all the witnesses who appeared before us were content that the status quo was the best practically available and that what we were doing effectively was trying to limit the damage to the interests of the public. One feature of the committee, which I noted when I had the privilege of chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place, was that sometimes the evidence given was important in itself, in that it was conveyed to Government and led to certain concessions or changes in government policy. I hope I was right in detecting a certain difference in tone from the Government as we proceeded.

This debate is welcome but has been delayed considerably. After all, our report was published in December 2017 and the Government’s reply was in February last year, so the passage of time may have had at least some effect. The point has been made about the way in which the Minister tried to pass responsibility for trade standards totally to local authorities, failing to mention the resource problem of local authorities. However, she did hint that,

“we might seek to improve the resourcing available to consumer enforcement prior to Brexit”.

Has any decision been made to follow this up? What has happened?

The network of arrangements for consultation and co-operation that has been developed over the years was mentioned by all the witnesses. For example, the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute said that,

“a lot of consumer protection is based on relationships with colleagues”.

Clearly these sort of relationships, often informal, are of great importance in the exchange of good practice and information. Surely the danger is that such important informal relationships will atrophy unless provided for in new arrangements. What proposal do the Government have? I concede that many of the bodies are not confined to the European Union, but many are.

I turn now to the fact that, even if there is little immediate effect on consumers, particularly given that the withdrawal Bill converts the body of existing EU law into domestic law, there will certainly be a change over time. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, the situation is not static. It is a dynamic situation and, over time, the law will be added to and refined, new case law will be developed and our ability to influence the law will be much reduced. As outsiders, clearly we will not be in the driving seat, whatever form of association we develop. What structures do the Government envisage to mitigate the difficulties I have mentioned?

These problems will be particularly acute if there is no deal. The Government conceded the problem in respect of no deal in the several working documents mentioned. For example, they said that, if we leave without a deal,

“there may be an impact on the extent to which UK consumers are protected when buying goods and services in the remaining Member States”.

They warned that:

“UK consumers will … no longer be able to use the UK courts effectively to seek redress from EU based traders”.


The Government concede the adverse effects.

The point I am seeking to make about the consumer protection co-operation regulation has been well made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I adopt what he said on that.

The final paragraph of our report invites the Government to, as a matter of urgency, produce a clear plan on how the CMA and national regulators can collaborate with their counterparts in Europe. Over a year later, I see no plan. Can we envisage such a plan?