Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I should be happy to have a look at those tariffs, but I do not think that this would prevent us from supporting community energy projects as a Government. We have a very good track record in that regard, through previous funds and through, for example, the towns fund, run by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which has just awarded more than £23.6 million to Glastonbury Town Council. The projects involved include the Glastonbury clean energy project, whose purpose is investment in renewable energy generation and low-carbon transport infrastructure. There is a great deal going on in this space, but I am happy to look at the tariff question in particular.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

14. When he will bring forward a consultation on the safety of products that are sold online.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

As the hon. Lady should know, a consultation, which includes proposals to take further steps to address unsafe products sold online, is being finalised, and the consultation paper will be published later this year.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Unsuspecting and cash-strapped consumers are being peddled recalled white goods, unsafe devices claiming to save energy, and dangerous toys. Online marketplaces are a hotbed for unsafe products, as has been evidenced time and again by investigations carried out by Electrical Safety First and other organisations. What steps are the Government are taking to address the safety risks that consumers face when shopping on these platforms?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Office for Product Safety and Standards leads a national programme of regulatory action to look at precisely those risks. In 2021, for example, 12,500 products were removed from supply as a direct result of OPSS intervention.

Penrose Review: UK Competition and Consumer Policy

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on securing this debate and on the review. Given his doughty defence of non-regulation, I hesitate to propose more regulation, but I would like to see a new competition and consumer Bill in the next session of Parliament. It has never been more needed than now, given the effects of the two-year pandemic and the cost of living crisis.

The pandemic has led to more people buying online, and more people are putting in fake reviews. That is a scam, and it has left millions of consumers bruised, out of pocket and with little trust in the companies trying to sell them goods and services. More than seven in 10 consumers use online reviews to inform purchases. They do not go down to the pub and talk to their neighbours about their purchases; they have not been able to do so for two years. They use online reviews.

There have been review practices across many of the largest online platforms, including Amazon, Google and Facebook, and multiple sectors have seen a thriving market in commissioning and selling fake reviews. Which? has called for commissioning and incentivising a fake review to be added to the list of automatically unfair practices in schedule 1 to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and I support that. Other than by looking reviews, where do people get information? What they need is the confidence that a review represents a verified purchase; that the review has been written by a real individual who was not given any money or incentive to buy a product; that the review was not for a free parcel that was delivered to the doorstep unknowingly; and that the review is honest. Sometimes, negative reviews are taken offline. People are told, “We’ll give you £5 for a positive review”, and if the review is not positive enough, they do not get the money.

There are other exploitative online practices, such as subscription traps and drip pricing. It is not about choosing the interests of the consumer over the interests of businesses, because the more effective consumer protection becomes, the more the UK economy benefits. It is a win-win. If consumers can trust businesses and their practices, they are more inclined to buy those companies’ products. Crucially to the businesses, people then come back for more.

Particularly when people are thinking very carefully about how to spend their money, it is imperative that we encourage trust in businesses. Companies will then compete on their ability to meet customers’ needs and provide real value, rather than on cutting corners or passing off shoddy products. Only the best businesses will survive, and that is as it should be. It is a partnership, because consumers and businesses both have the same interests at heart. Consumers want the best products at the best prices, and businesses want to sell them those things.

An important component of the legislation is around redress and alternative dispute resolution. Which? says that there should be mandatory dispute resolution schemes in key sectors that have a high volume of complaints and are often complex and high value. We have all seen, particularly through the pandemic, the problems that people have had getting refunds for air travel. Thousands of covid-related flight cancellations left people out of pocket, and the airlines have quite often chosen to ignore the law by refusing a refund. People have waited months, if not years, for those refunds. There are two ADR schemes in the aviation industry, but neither is compulsory to join. Ryanair left one scheme because it disagreed with the judgments relating to strikes by its air crew. Jetair, Emirates and others have failed to join any ADR scheme. If things go wrong, the passengers do not have any redress.

In early 2019, the all-party parliamentary group on consumer protection, which I chair, published a report calling for the wholesale reform of the ADR platform. We looked in detail at the various ombudsmen and ADR schemes and found enormous variation in how they operate. Some are statutory bodies, and some are not. Some cover all firms in the sector, because everyone has to join them, and some do not. Some can enforce the judgments, and some cannot. That creates total confusion for consumers, who are often left frustrated and do not know who to go to. Air travel was one of the areas where the statutory scheme was most keenly felt, and that was pre covid.

Our report said that what was needed was a powerful and accessible statutory ombudsman, which probably echoes the call from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare about a 24/7 dispute resolution platform. People do not know where to go. They have to negotiate a difficult maze of ombudsmen. Who do they go to? There should be a single point of entry for all complaints, which should be passed through to the correct ombudsman. I think that there should be an ombudsman for travel, so that people do not think, “Some of my journey was air travel, but there was also a bit of rail. Was it the delay on the railway that led to my missing the plane?” It gets far too confusing for the consumer. People often buy a package, which includes the flights and hotel. Is that a package, or are there separate bookings for the flights and the hotel? Some companies have said, “You booked the flights and hotel with us, but it is not a package, because they were booked separately.” When one part goes wrong, to whom do people turn? That is why we need an ombudsman for the whole travel industry; I think that is the model in Germany.

We also need to look at enforcement. The CMA is responsible for the enforcement of consumer law in precedent setting and market-wide cases, but it lacks the power to effectively protect consumer rights and deter companies. In order to enforce a decision, there is a lengthy court process, and a company can be fined only if it fails to comply with a court order. One example of that is the issue with the ticket seller Viagogo. It took six years for Viagogo to be forced to change its practices and follow the CMA guidance on the information it gives to consumers. In Canada, however, the secondary ticketing sites Ticketmaster and StubHub had immediate fines of 4 million Canadian dollars and 5 million Canadian dollars in costs. They also received a fine of 1.3 million Canadian dollars for not complying with a previous warning. Compare that with a process that took six years, during which time Viagogo could rip off consumers. It is just not good enough.

There are other examples of companies in the travel and wedding sectors that, despite clear guidance from the CMA, were very slow to offer refunds and unlawfully held on to customers’ money for months and months after the cancellation of services—by them, not by consumers. We need a simplified process of investigation, and we need the CMA to have greater powers—along the lines of those enjoyed by the other UK regulators, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office—to raise standards and challenge companies that fail to comply. We have the power to do that, but it needs some teeth. It is no use having regulation and legislation unless it can be enforced easily for consumers, who are often deterred by a long, complex process; indeed, some businesses rely on that.

We are all consumers. Most of the time, things go smoothly, but it is when things go wrong that the gaps in protection are exposed. Limiting that exposure is vital in order to give consumers the confidence to make more purchases without the undue stress and worry that many have had to go through in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I met representatives of the FSB and other organisations yesterday, when we touched upon energy for businesses. We will always listen to those representative organisations. Clearly we want to ensure that the £408 billion of support in the last two years to protect businesses, livelihoods and jobs will help us to shape the recovery, with ongoing support from this Government—the Government for business.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

11. Whether he is taking steps to support prepayment meter customers following the increase in the energy price cap through the energy bills rebate.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

We are working hard to design this scheme at pace. We acknowledge that delivering the bill reduction for this payment mechanism will require a special focus, and that is why we are engaging with consumer groups and Ofgem to work out how best to design the mechanism.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

People on prepayment meters will see their bills rise by £708, which is £46 more than for those who pay by direct debit. How will the Secretary of State ensure that people do not self-disconnect, leaving them without heat and means to cook? How will that be monitored? What thought has been given to private renters so that they do not lose out on the rebate due to the frequent tenancy changes in that sector?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We are constantly engaging with Citizens Advice, Ofgem and a huge range of stakeholders about how to protect the most vulnerable consumers. The package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor only a couple of weeks ago includes £350, which goes halfway towards addressing the increase that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) describes. The warm home discount is being extended from 2 million people to 3 million people, and the uplift will be to £150.

Gas and Electricity Costs

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing the debate.

People will die. Those are not my words; they are not the words of an Opposition politician. They are the words of Martin Lewis, who was voted the most trusted man in Britain. Heating bills are going up by more than £700 a year in April and they are likely to go up more in October. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 54% of single adults and 25% of single parents spend more than half their income on heating. That is simply not sustainable, especially when they are facing other increased costs. We are in one of the world’s richest economies, yet people are looking at the stark choice of eating or heating.

Wages are not keeping up with inflation, which in particular penalises low-income people, who spend much more of their income on essentials. The solution cannot be an increase in personal debt. Christians Against Poverty has reported a 41% increase in people requesting help from it in January, while searches for fuel help on the Citizens Advice website have gone up phenomenally. We have to find a way to deal with the debt crisis, but the first step is to deal with the fuel price increase. That is urgent. It has been caused by not only the higher wholesale prices, but the explosion and lack of regulation in new energy companies entering the market and offering low and unsustainable prices to switchers. That is supposed to increase competition, but it has always failed the most vulnerable and it penalises many who cannot or do not want to switch. We have to look at that.

What can we do? An immediate cut to VAT on fuel would be a quick fix to start. I agree that it is a blunt instrument, but it is easy, quick and would help a number of people. However, it cannot be the only measure. We need to increase the warm home discount and widen the eligibility for that scheme, and we need to fund it from a different source. It cannot be funded from a levy on all electricity bills, because that will penalise everybody again.

I agree that we have to look at greener and more sustainable means of producing electricity.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech. I want to pick up on an interesting point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). At the moment, the UK consumes about 41.8 GWe. People can check that on their telephone apps quite easily. Some 16.9% of that electricity is from wind, but that figure could be greater. Wind has been supported by the Government’s contracts for difference. Is there not a question as to why wind is being bundled into those energy prices? Why, as the hon. Member for Bath suggested, are companies profiting by bundling it into energy prices, when it is actually supported by the Government? We all know that the marginal cost of producing wind energy is zero. Our wind energy output could be greater, had things been built on the Scottish islands with a minor bit of Government planning over the years.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

We need to look at all the ways in which energy is produced and we need a mix of energy. We have to look at the green levy as well. At the moment it is a levy on all bills, so the poorest are paying the most.

We need to look at a social or below-cost tariff funded by the energy industry: each gas or electricity supplier should pay a sum into a central pot, based on the number of customers, which could then be redistributed to people in fuel poverty. We should not forget the people on prepayment meters; often, they are the poorest and have been in difficulty with their bills before. There is no way that people on prepayment meters should be paying the amounts they are paying for gas and electricity even now. There should be help and adequate protection for those people.

We have to accept that people should spend only a certain proportion of their income on energy. I am not saying where we should draw the line, but more than 10% is far too much—without even getting into the eye-watering figures we have heard from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

People on low incomes budget very carefully, but it is a bit like spinning plates—they pay one bill, they pay another bill, they look at the next bill. With the cost of electricity and gas forecast to increase so much, those plates will come crashing to the ground. That is why we need to act now to make sure that people are not, as one of my constituents said, out of their minds with worry. People need real help to keep the heating on, pay all their other bills and eat properly. If we are not careful, it will not only be free socks that energy companies offer; they will have to offer food parcels as well—ones that do not need heating up.

Budget Resolutions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate all Members who made their maiden speeches today, but particularly the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) on his generous tribute to his predecessor. He has been an assiduous local councillor and I am sure that he will bring that experience to his new role.

I am pleased that statutory sick pay will be extended to all employees from day one, although I need more detail about what will happen to people who are not eligible for statutory sick pay. We need to remember that there will be a big drop in income for many people and that their outgoings will still be the same. If we combine that with the fact that substantial numbers of people have savings of less than £100, it begins to become a pretty big issue, and it will certainly increase the need for debt advice.

The crisis also brings into focus the need to look at why people are not saving. In many cases, this will be because of a negative income, but in others, it may be the lack of an affordable, easily accessed and flexible product available to those on a low or fluctuating income and with a poor credit history. I would really like some more information on the no-interest loan scheme, which was suggested last year as a way to help people on the lowest incomes. It is disappointing that that was not detailed in the Budget.

I also want to know what is being done to ensure that there is sufficient free debt advice both in the long term and the short term. People have to be helped not to take short-term action because of a crisis that has a negative long-term effect. I am thinking particularly of individual voluntary arrangements, which have increased, mostly for young people. We have to have debt solutions that are tailored to the individual, not what is profitable for the company.

Have the Government looked at implementing the breathing space scheme earlier? More money is being given for implementation, but people need forbearance now from all creditors if they are affected. I know that some banks are looking at a mortgage break, but what help is there for renters, particularly private renters? Could the situation of those imprisoned in high-interest mortgages due to the failure of Northern Rock be urgently reviewed?

I would also like to see key performance indicators addressed so that local authorities are rewarded for sustaining long-term affordable repayment plans with council tax payers who get into difficulty, instead of prioritising in-year collections, which lead to the use of bailiffs, which in many cases exacerbates the situation. More people may be forced to claim universal credit for the first time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) that the five-week wait should go. It is no use giving people a loan and pushing them further into debt. Pushing people who are already struggling into further debt is incredibly unhelpful. The stress it adds to individuals already concerned about the health of their families and themselves is incalculable.

I would also like to see more detail on the hardship fund to be given to local authorities. How will it be distributed, what are the guidelines, and how much local discretion will there be? It is surely time to reinvigorate the local welfare provision. One in seven councils no longer operate such schemes, which are relied upon by the most vulnerable when they experience sudden financial shocks—and it has to be monetary help. Many councils just point people in the direction of advice, but when someone needs to buy a washing machine or a new bed, or simply new school shoes, advice is not much use.

This might be a tangential issue, but I would like more detail of what the Treasury is doing to guarantee access to cash. There should be a strategy for long-term access to cash that looks at the current trends and which involves the banks, the card issuers and the note machine operators and, crucially, is linked to the high street strategy. In my constituency, we have lost 16% of our free-to-use ATMs. There are 900 ATMs in the borough of Kensington. The average across the country is approximately 50. This is not sustainable and does not help struggling high streets. We need to make sure cash is available and that cash machines are free.

It is good news that the Access to All scheme will receive more cash. Perhaps at last Hindley station, the most used station on the Manchester line and the best kept, will be successful in its bid. I also welcome the fact that the Chancellor has axed the reading tax, but I hope this can be extended to audiobooks, which are a lifeline to people who have impaired vision.

Despite the big announcements regarding infrastructure, connectivity and levelling up, it is disappointing that the housing infrastructure bid to open up brownfield land in my constituency failed. Without this, any new housing will severely impact on gridlocked roads. I will continue to maintain that there should be no development before infrastructure.

I will conclude by mentioning a couple of omissions. While the Chancellor is looking at helping the vulnerable, perhaps he should meet the 1950s-born women to understand the effect of the pension changes on their lives. I recently met a woman working three jobs, all low paid, to make ends meet after the death of her husband and a delay in receiving her pension. She is in poor health and works with elderly and vulnerable people. Catching coronavirus would push her over the edge, both financially and mentally. We also need to look at how social care is funded. It is deeply unfair to make councils split any allocation between their two biggest priorities of supporting the elderly and supporting children.

In short, the Budget attempts to plug holes caused by 10 years of austerity. Let us remember that interest rates have been at an historic low for all of that period. I hope there will be a review of the strategy now to ensure that more individuals and families do not become financially vulnerable and to provide more help to those who do.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Consumer Ombudsman Scheme

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

I agree with the course of action suggested by my hon. Friend. It would benefit consumers and traders.

As I have pointed out, membership of an ombudsman scheme is voluntary, and a company can refuse to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process. Even though it may be in the best interest of consumers and companies to deal with problems quickly, effectively and amicably, I am sure no one will be surprised that unco-operative companies prefer to be obstructive, to prevent a quick, effective and amicable resolution. That was the experience of a constituent of mine with one such company, which I will come to shortly.

The Government response conceded that

“there is no mandatory requirement to use ADR although it is available for any dispute should the business decide they want to use it.”

This debate and my prior petition are about the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so it does not compute that businesses can decide whether they want to use an alternative dispute resolution while customers’ wishes are overlooked. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how that relates to consumer rights. The production of the consumer Green Paper—a positive outcome of my petition—was meant to

“closely examine markets especially those which are not working fairly for consumers.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 6P.]

The example I will give is a good case of that. As my constituent’s experience will show, there are markets that are not working fairly for consumers. Despite the Green Paper, no amendments have been made to the 2015 Act to address the situation.

Among other things, the Green Paper consulted on two matters directly related to my constituent’s case: how to improve the system of alternative dispute resolution, and how to support local and national enforcers to work together to protects consumers. I draw Members’ attention to “Creating a successful enforcement system for UK consumers”, a policy report published a year ago by Which? Among other things, it directly addresses those two relevant matters. It proposes seven changes to create a regime that will protect consumers effectively, because the current system is, unfortunately, too weak.

The report proposes:

“A robust and accessible ADR system is vital for people who have been unable to resolve their complaint directly with the business concerned.”

It further states:

“Key to a successful system is… fair and enforceable decisions by ADR bodies”.

I fully endorse and agree with those points. The report goes on to address the proposed obligation for an ombudsman scheme to be compulsory, stating that

“an obligation on sectors (particularly where significant or essential purchases are involved)”

should be “part of a scheme”.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the landscape of ombudsman schemes is very confusing, and that a single access portal would help the consumer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am happy to meet the hon. Lady. Without knowing the specifics or the details, it is difficult to comment, but she mentioned contracts.

If parties cannot reach an agreement, alternative dispute resolution can also involve a final arbitration of the case that the business accepts as binding. Alternative dispute resolution has benefits for both parties, but I am concerned that tens of thousands of consumers still go to court to resolve disputes with business. I am also unhappy that many do so because the business refuses to participate in a cheaper, quicker and less adversarial alternative dispute resolution process. I want to make it easier and quicker for consumers to obtain redress across all sectors of the economy when things go wrong.

The Government consulted on the issue in the Green Paper “Modernising consumer markets” and launched a review of the consumer redress system. The review addresses in particular how Government can improve business take-up of the alternative dispute resolution, increase consumer awareness and raise quality standards. Consumers have a right to take a dispute to ADR in the finance, energy, telecoms, estate agent and legal services sectors. In other sectors, there is no mandatory requirement to use ADR, although it is available for any dispute should the business decide it wants to use it.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

The Minister has mentioned a number of areas where there are ombudsmen, but the system is extremely confusing. Is it not time that the Minister committed to a complete overhaul of the ombudsman system to bring them all into line, to give them proper teeth and to make them mandatory, so that they can enforce their judgments?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and note her particular interest in the area as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. As I will come on to say, we are committed to making the process easier for consumers to get redress. I hope that the response to the Green Paper, and the Command Paper that we expect to publish later in the spring, will give her some confidence in that area.

ADR is not mandatory for the furniture and home furnishings sector, where the furniture ombudsman provides dispute resolution services. The furniture ombudsman is a highly regarded service, but it can only offer its services when businesses join the scheme. I understand that in the case highlighted by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, the furniture retailer in question had not joined the furniture ombudsman. That is why it was unable to help his constituent, Ms Johnston, leaving the courts as her only route to redress at the cost of much distress to her.