Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In chapter 2 of part 4 of the Bill, we are introducing measures to give consumers new rights over their subscription contracts, while ensuring that businesses are not overburdened by regulations. The measures are an important part of the Government’s commitment to help consumers have more control over their spending. Together, they will deliver £400 million in consumer benefits per year.

Clause 245 assists readers to navigate the chapter. Clause 246 provides a legal definition of a subscription contract.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify from when the Government expect these specific clauses to be implemented?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

From the—first we have to get Royal Assent, of course—

[Neil Coyle]

With immediate effect?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There may be some regulations to deploy after that. I can find out for definite if the hon. Gentleman gives me a few minutes. It is in the Bill, of course, so it should be pretty quick.

Clause 246 provides a legal definition of a subscription contract, which is principally one that automatically renews or continues so that a consumer continues to be liable for payments unless they end the contract. That includes contracts that are of fixed duration but can be ended earlier by the consumer. Contracts that offer a free or reduced-cost trial for a defined period and then revert to a higher cost are also in the scope of the chapter. It is critical that such contracts are included as calculations show that each year, around a quarter of consumers get rolled over accidentally from free or reduced-price trials.

Clause 247 provides for specific sectors and subscription contract types to be excluded from the chapter and those sectors are detailed in schedule 19. The sectors have been excluded because they are already subject to regulation and may be supervised by a specialist regulator. To apply the chapter to them would overburden them with regulation and trespass on the remit of a specialist regulator. It could also potentially create conflict between the regulation and legislation, particularly if the sectors already provide consumers with similar protections.

Sectors may also have been excluded on public policy grounds, such as the exclusion for childcare. The childcare sector, like many of the other excluded sectors, provides an essential service and these are not the type of contracts that we consider raise the risks commonly associated with a subscription trap. The exclusions in schedule 19 may need to change over time as the regulatory and legislative regimes for the excluded sectors change. That is why clause 247 ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to adapt the provisions through secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we do not intend to include national lotteries or society lotteries in this legislation. We are talking to those bodies to ensure that they are confident that that is the case. If we need to amend the Bill to do that, we will, but those conversations will continue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

Clause 250 requires traders to send reminder notices in certain instances. A reminder must be sent on the first occasion that a subscription renews, including when a free or low-cost trial is coming to an end. That will ensure that consumers know they will soon become liable for payments, or higher payments, and can decide whether they want to continue the contract.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister says that clause 250 is relevant only in certain circumstances. Can he be clear that the Government’s intention is not for the provision to cover someone who has perhaps been a decades-long subscriber to, for example, Sky? I hate to pick a particular company, but it is for the purposes of the conversation—I am not a Sky subscriber. Is the Minister saying that, if a person had had a contract for a decade and was a regular viewer of sports channels, or whatever it might be, they would not be caught by the clause? The “certain circumstances” do not seem to be well understood by some businesses outside this building.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We have had dialogue with Sky, and many other organisations have contacted us to clarify some points. A subscription contract with Sky would fall under the provisions. Sky may be concerned about certain things, in terms of cooling-off periods, but I have not had any feedback from Sky or others that they have concerns about these particular provisions, unless the hon. Gentleman wants to mention something specifically.

[Neil Coyle]

I think that Sky briefed quite widely—it briefed members of the Committee and beyond—that it thinks that it is caught by the provision and that it covers all contracts. I can understand that a person would be caught by the new provisions if they had a new contract where there was a discount, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston already pointed out, but to impose the condition retrospectively on business contracts that someone could have had for decades seems to place a new onus on existing business arrangements. The Government have avoided doing that in other legislation, and I wonder about the rationale. I picked Sky off the top of my head, but it is an organisation that is concerned.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point when he first made it. I think he is saying that it covers existing contracts as well as new contracts. Is that his point, and can I come back to him on it?

[Neil Coyle]

Sure.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

After the first renewal reminder, consumers with a monthly renewing contract will be sent a reminder around the six-month mark. For contracts that renew less frequently than every six months, such as annual subscriptions, a reminder will generally be sent whenever the contract renews.

Clause 251 sets out the required timescales for serving reminder notices. Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 20 set out what pre-contract information traders must give to the consumer before they enter a contract. Part 3 of schedule 20 sets out the information that traders must include in a reminder notice.

I can address the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark right now, if he would like: the subscription contract clauses will apply only to new contracts taken after chapter 2 comes into force. Reminder notices must include information on the forthcoming payment, including any increase since the last renewal. They must also include an indication of how long the consumer will be committed following renewal, and how to end the contract should the consumer wish to.

Clause 252 requires traders to provide a clear and straightforward cancellation route for consumers to exit a contract. Through the clause, consumers will be able to exit their contract in a single communication and without having to take any steps that are not reasonably necessary for ending their contract. That will put an end to poor practices that force consumers to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy trying to exit their contract.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous. To be clear, is it the Government’s expectation that a subscription could be cancelled through a single communication from any device or social media platform? Over recent days, significant figures have tried to close bank accounts and other things by tweeting. Is it the Government’s expectation that this communication would come from a verified point of contact, such as an email address or phone number that the company holds? Otherwise, I could set up a Twitter account—or a Threads account, as we have seen this week—in the Minister’s name and then cancel his TV, or other, subscriptions.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I may have misunderstood his point, but I think the example he gave was of a bank closing an account from Twitter. That is the other way around—that is the bank closing the account rather than the customer.

[Neil Coyle]

I was thinking of Laurence Fox.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Okay, but I think clause 252 is clear that there must be a straightforward cancellation route for consumers to exit a contract. He appears to describe a convoluted route, but I did not quite understand it. Would he like to expand on his point?

[Neil Coyle]

Sorry if I was not clear. I thank the Minister for checking. Will it have to be from a single point of contact, such as a verified address, to protect the customer as well as the business? If I wanted to cancel a contract, would I have to use the email address or phone number that the company holds for me and not, as the Bill currently reads, a Facebook post or something that the business may not be able to confirm is mine? Does that help?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not sure whether it does or not. I refer the hon. Gentleman to one of my earlier points: it is a straightforward cancellation route. What he describes to me is not a straightforward cancellation route. That is the key definition. We can have a discussion after this sitting.

Clause 253 requires a trader to send a notice confirming when the contract was, or will be, ended once they have been notified of cancellation by the consumer. This also applies where a consumer exercises a cancellation right under this chapter. The trader must provide this notice promptly, and on a durable medium, and refund consumers any overpayment for which they are no longer liable.

I now turn to new clauses 5 and 6, which I will address together. They propose that traders must obtain a consumer’s express agreement to an auto-renewing contract by the consumer’s active opt-in. Through new clause 5, when consumers sign up to a subscription contract, they would have to be given the option to choose whether their subscription auto-renews after six months. If they do not choose this auto-renewal option, the contract would end after six months unless the consumer expressly asks for it to continue.

New clause 6 would apply equivalent requirements to contracts that auto-renew after a free or low-cost trial and may also auto-renew again subsequently. The Government share the view that consumers must be able to avoid being trapped in unwanted subscriptions and ensure their hard-earned cash is spent only on subscriptions they actually want. However, we know that the majority of consumers enjoy the auto-renewing features of their subscription contracts and the convenience they provide.

Through these new clauses, if a consumer had not opted-in to an auto-renewing contract, but they decide they want to keep their subscription, they would have to repeatedly respond to emails or similar to continue their subscription, or risk it unintentionally lapsing. That risk could be multiplied across each subscription they hold. For that reason, the Government decided not to pursue that approach, which was supported by our public consultation.

It is also important to consider the burdens the changes could place on businesses. The measures would add significant regulatory costs to businesses as they adapt their business models to meet the proposals. We are confident that the approach we have taken strikes the right balance of ensuring consumers are able to exit their contracts at various points during their contract, as well as maintaining consumer convenience.

Furthermore, the existing clauses in this chapter already achieve much of the ambition of the amendments. As I set out earlier, clause 250 will ensure consumers are sent regular reminders about their subscription, including towards the end of a free or low-cost trial. These reminders will ensure that consumers have the right information at the right time to decide if they want to continue their contract, or cancel it.

In addition, through clause 252 we will ensure easy cancellation routes so that subscriptions are as easy to leave as they are to enter. Finally, the Bill enhances consumers’ existing cooling-off rights. Clause 256, which we will discuss shortly, introduces an extra 14-day cooling-off period after a free or low-cost trial, and at the 12-month mark when a longer-term contract auto-renews. That means that, if for any reason a consumer has not been able to take action to cancel before renewal, they have an extra chance to do so.

Together, those measures will ensure that consumers can make informed decisions about their subscription contract. They also make it easy to leave while avoiding creating additional steps for those who want to continue. I hope that reassures hon. Members that the Bill will enable consumers to manage their contracts effectively, and that they feel able to withdraw the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are a few points to pick up on there. The shadow Minister wanted clarification on what “as soon as practicable” means. We expect traders to provide consumers with the relevant pre-contract information immediately before concluding the contract. If the contract is concluded online, that information should be provided during the online order process. If face to face, the trader should give that information before a contract is agreed.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark raised a point about when the provisions will commence. We do not clearly have a set commencement date at this point in time, but we are keen to get these measures in place to protect consumers. We also recognise that there must be sufficient time for businesses to adapt, and we will engage with stakeholders, including the ones referred to by the hon. Gentleman, to ensure that an appropriate transition takes place. When cancelling or ending a contract, is a single tweet enough? I think that was the hon. Gentleman’s point. The ability of the consumer to end their contract by notifying the trader by any means is a safety net whereby consumers can always use the fall-back option of a simple notification if it is preferable or easier for them, particularly if the trader has failed to provide a clear route for consumers to end their contract.

Where necessary, the Government will provide further clarification in business guidance, which will obviously include discussions with stakeholders. However, as the provisions state, it is important that consumers notify a trader in a way that clearly communicates their intention to end the contract, which can be actioned by the trader. Hence this notification must be given in a sufficiently clear manner. I think it is fair to say that a sole tweet probably would not be sufficiently clear.

[Neil Coyle]

I think that last comment about a tweet not being sufficient would be welcomed by responsible businesses that just want to use the verified contact details.

The other point is perhaps a bit more worrying, Chair. We are quite well into this Bill Committee. There is an economic impact assessment. The Minister has said today that the measures would be implemented immediately, but has just corrected that in his final comment. The assessment set out here does not now include the cost to business of implementing these measures, because we do not have a start date. How can businesses plan to implement measures when they do not know their start date, and they do not know because the Minister is still clarifying what would be considered sufficient contact from a customer to close an account?

Do the Government intend to provide new impact assessments to reflect what the Minister has just said—?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Is this a speech or an intervention?

[The Chair]

I think that I say that. [Laughter.]

[Neil Coyle]

When will the Government provide the right figures for what this will cost businesses in Britain?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The assessment is set out. The impact assessment for businesses states a figure of £179 million, I think.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I am not giving way, thank you very much, because I want to address the hon. Gentleman’s points.

Regarding when these provisions will commence, of course we do not know how quickly this legislation will pass through both Houses of Parliament. It will be subject to much debate, including by people such as the hon. Gentleman. However, I have said clearly that the Government will give guidance and work with stakeholders to make sure that they fully understand the provisions in this legislation and have time to prepare for them. That is what I said in my earlier remarks, so I think the hon. Gentleman is being a bit churlish in terms of that perspective, perhaps for political purposes. However, all the way through this legislation, we have been keen to strike a balance between what is right for consumers and right for businesses. That is a balance we intend to strike, because we fully recognise the needs of business as well as the needs of consumers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 248 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clauses 249 to 253 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 254

Terms implied into contracts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I have a couple of points; I will try to keep them brief. The clause fundamentally rejects where the Government suggest the responsibility for oversight of a savings scheme should sit. I was just listening to the Minister, and it is probably worth flagging up the message from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute on this. The Government say that they have assessed where this should sit; they say that they have worked with partners and consulted, but that does not seem to be the feeling of the chartered institute covering the sector, whose language is interesting:

“These brand new provisions have been inappropriately dumped on local authority trading standards to deal with, but it would be much better placed to give the Financial Conduct Authority the responsibility to regulate new provisions on savings schemes which are similar in nature to banking and other financial matters already regulated by the FCA. Saving schemes are often national schemes”—

such as Farepak, which Members will be familiar with. No individual local authority could have prevented what happened with Farepak; I think that is the point it is making. I will come back to its direct comments—

“and therefore should be in the remit of a national regulator with the experience and resources to deal with financial matters. CTSI would like to see all references to local authorities removed in these provisions and to pass on responsibility.”

The Minister says that the FCA is not the right vehicle or body. Perhaps there is space and time to examine what that body should be. The point made by trading standards is that they do not have the skillset to oversee financial services in the way that the Government are demanding. They do not have the resources—that is the point made in our evidence sessions. This follows 13 years of cuts to weights and measures—to trading standards—which we have seen across the country; there has been a 50% cut in their capacity to do the job. Again, this is the Government trying to insist that local government take on greater responsibility after cuts to their own resources.

Southwark is a case in point. We have seen similar cuts to trading standards, but also to the overall council’s budget. The Government reduce the responsibilities of central Government Departments, such as the Home Office, and pass on additional costs running into the millions for things such as emergency children’s services with no recourse to public funds, without giving additional resources to councils to do so. This is another case in point where the Government are trying to push a new power and demand on to an already overstretched and under-resourced arena.

New clause 7 would have made the FCA the relevant body, rather than local authorities, but the point of the new clause is that trading standards should not be made responsible for something when they do not have the expertise or resource to be effective. If the Government do not think it should be the FCA, it is up to the Government to come back and find the right body. It is the Government’s legislation; they want it to be effective, and for these saving schemes to not collapse and leave people without, so it is incumbent on the Government to come up with either the resources and skills—training, whatever it might take—for trading standards to do this, or an alternative body to oversee these specific saving schemes. It is important at this stage to flag that concern, because there is a deep resentment, almost, from the sector over the Government’s suggestion that trading standards take this on, yet the Government still insist that it is the appropriate vehicle.

I hope there is still time to review which alternative body might be able to take on this task. This feels like something that a national body should deal with, and it should not sit with local authorities as operators and rogue traders may cover whole regions of the country, not one single local authority. I did listen to the Minister, and take onboard his suggestion that the FCA is not necessarily the right vehicle, therefore I am prepared to withdraw this amendment, as drafted, but I would like to see a commitment to reconsider where this responsibility sits.

[Seema Malhotra]

Clause 274 introduces the definition of a “consumer savings scheme contact” for the purposes of this chapter. Specifically, the clause defines it as a contract under which the consumer makes payments to a trader,

“the trader credits those payments to an account that is held by the trader for the consumer…and the payments credited to the consumer’s account provide a fund for the consumer to redeem as goods, services or digital content”.

The definition forms part of new provisions introduced by this chapter which are important for protecting consumers who use consumer savings schemes, and we welcome this. Clause 275 defines other terms used in this chapter—and in clause 274—and we welcome the further clarity this brings.

Clause 276 introduces schedule 21, which sets out arrangements that are excluded from the scope of a consumer savings scheme contract. It includes regulated financial services activities, arrangements for the supply of utilities, a contract between a consumer and a trader where the trader’s turnover is less than £1 million per year, childcare voucher schemes, and package holidays .

We welcome that exclusions might be necessary in cases where it is impractical for these regulations to apply. However, I would welcome some further clarification on paragraph 3 of the schedule to set out how contracts offered by small businesses are exempt. Is that in relation to wanting to have the right balance between smaller businesses and consumers? We obviously want to ensure that the consumer is as protected as possible in these contracts, so I would be grateful for a response from the Minister on that.

Clause 277—“insolvency protection requirement”—introduces provisions regarding the event of a trader’s insolvency and covering the costs of returning to the consumer any protected payments at the time of the insolvency. We do welcome that, and it is important in the context of record levels of insolvencies. It is a particularly unstable period, and it is important for consumers to have protections.

Clause 278 sets out what is understood to be an “appropriate policy” in the instance of a trader complying with the provisions in clause 277 by taking out an insurance policy. Under the Bill, an appropriate policy is one in which consumers are insured with cover for the refunding of prepayments held in the consumer’s account that have not been redeemed at the time of insolvency. The insurer must also be authorised by UK authorities. We welcome this clause, though I ask the Minister to expand on subsection (3), which requires the trader to

“meet the costs of arranging and maintaining an appropriate policy”

and explicitly inhibits traders passing that cost on to consumers.

I would be grateful for two things. First, will the Minister explain how we can be confident that the trader will not find a way to pass on this additional cost to the consumer? Secondly, will the Minister confirm how quickly, in the event of insolvency, consumers can expect to have their prepayment refunded? It would be helpful if he could clarify that. Does he feel that provision is tight enough in the Bill?

Clause 279 applies in circumstances where a trader complies with the insolvency protection requirements in clause 277 by using a trust arrangement. It sets out how it must ensure consumer prepayments are held in a trust located in the UK. The consumer’s prepayments must also be held in a trust until either the funds have been redeemed or the payments have been returned to the consumer. Similarly to clause 278, the Opposition welcome this clause as providing greater protections under consumer savings schemes in circumstances where the trader becomes insolvent.

I refer the Minister to subsection (7), which requires the cost of administering the trust to be paid for by the trader. Again, how will the Minister be able to safeguard against the trader passing this additional cost on to the consumer?

Clause 280 sets out the information requirements attached to this chapter. Specifically, it sets out that, within 30 working days of the consumer’s first payment into the savings scheme, the trader must provide:

“the name, address, telephone number and email address of the insurer or trustees responsible for protecting the consumer’s payments;

where insurance arrangements are in place, the policy number for the policy under which the consumer’s payments are protected;

where trust arrangements are in place, a copy of the trust deed under which the consumer’s payments are held.”

It is a welcome provision, but will the Minister expand on the 30-day time period? On what basis does the Minister believe that the trader would need 30 days to put these arrangements in place? Would these arrangements not happen automatically as soon as the consumer enters the scheme? That is an important question for ensuring that the consumer is informed of their protections.

Clause 281 would add chapter 3 of part 4 of the Bill to the list of enactments in schedule 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. We welcome the clause.

Clause 282 introduces definitions for the purposes of this chapter. Similarly, we welcome the clause in providing the transparency, consistency and clarity needed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark thinks that trading standards is not the right body; the Government think that it is, and that position—of it not being the Financial Conduct Authority—is supported by the Law Commission. These are clearly not financial products. They are not defined as such in the relevant legislation.

Trading standards already has a business relationship with supermarkets. There is already a Primary Authority Supermarkets Group in the trading standards network; it therefore seems logical, given that supermarkets will probably be offering these kinds of services, that this should be handled by trading standards.

[Neil Coyle]

Why does the Minister think that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute does not want this responsibility?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is not the feedback that I have heard. I am very happy to see the information that the hon. Member has in front of him and to try to meet those concerns of the trading standards body. Trading standards is the most relevant body in our view; the hon. Gentleman may take a different view, and he is entitled to do so.

The shadow Minister mentioned small businesses. The small businesses that are excluded are those with an annual turnover of less than £1 million and collect less than an average of £10 a month from customers, so we do not see those as having the same potential detriment as with other, larger organisations.

As for traders passing on the costs of the insurance or the trust, they are clearly prohibited from doing so in this legislation. There is a requirement, as the hon. Lady will have seen, for the accounts of a relevant trader to be audited every three years; we would expect those checks to take place at that point to ensure that it was being done appropriately.

On payments being made, clearly that will be a case for either the insolvency practitioner or the insurance company, but we would expect that fees held in trust would be rapidly returned to people who were due to have their money returned. On the shadow Minister’s point about 30 days, well, it is

“before the end of 30…days”,

so the information may well be provided, as she would desire, much more quickly than that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 274 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 275 and 276 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 21 agreed to.

Clauses 277 to 282 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)