Kevin Hollinrake
MP for Thirsk and Malton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq. One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is.”
“The UK economy went through many challenges, of course, some of them caused by Brexit; the reality is that a change like that was bound to have a short-term effect—but only a short-term effect. The country grew faster than Germany and France during that period of time.”
“As I said before, governing is not easy; we had many challenges ourselves, and we did not get everything right, but what we did during that difficult period of time—those 14 years—was get 1.2 million more people employed in our economy. Unemployment was halved during our time in office.”
“Of course, many Government Members supported his leadership challenge. We are here now, looking forward to a general election coming down the track. We are ready for a general election when the Government are, because, unlike them, we have a strong leader—against their weak leader.”
“I was, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition.”
“Members on the Government side of the House also feel betrayed and angry with their own leadership, for marching them up to the top of the hill and marching them back down again on many of these issues, but they do not feel as betrayed as the businesspeople in this country in particular.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,516 lines we hold for Kevin Hollinrake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 37 of 71.
“I do not have anything further to add. Perhaps we can have a discussion about this offline. Amendment 83 agreed to. Clause 283, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 284 Other definitions Amendments made : 84, in clause 284, page 189, line 34, leave out “(the gas code)” and insert “, or by section 12(1) or (2) of the Energy Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (2011 c. 6),”. The provisions of the Gas Act 1986 referred to in clause 284(3)(b) do not extend to Northern Ireland. This amendment would add a reference to the corresponding legislation in Northern Ireland . Amendment 85, in clause 284, page 189, line 39, leave out “(the electricity code”) and insert “or by paragraph 3(1) or (2) of Schedule 6 to the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (S.I.1992/231 (N.I.1))”.”
“A person who carries out ADR or makes ADR arrangements under or for the purposes of an exempt redress scheme will be an exempt ADR provider.”
“I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 287, page 192, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert— “(1) In this Chapter— “exempt ADR provider” means a person who— (a) is listed (or of a description of persons listed) in Part 1 of Schedule 22, or (b) is (when carrying out ADR or making special ADR arrangements) acting under or for the purposes of an exempt redress scheme; “exempt redress scheme” means a scheme or other similar arrangement which is listed (or of a description listed) in Part 1A of Schedule 22.” The amendment reflects the approach proposed by the government amendments to Schedule 22 to have two lists: Part 1 will list particular authorities (or descriptions of authorities) who are (if and to the extent they carry out ADR or make special ADR arrangements) exempt ADR providers. Part 1A will list “exempt redress schemes”.”
“Clause 287 and schedule 22 exempt various bodies that, so far as they provide ADR, it is not considered appropriate to regulate, and also exempt ADR under statutory redress schemes regulated by other legislation. Clause 287 allows the exemptions to be reviewed and updated. Government amendments 92 to 96 amend clause 287, and Government amendments 108 to 111 amend schedule 22. They distinguish more clearly between the two categories of exemption. They also add exemptions for the local government and social care ombudsman, the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and redress schemes for social housing, lettings agencies and property management.”
“The amendment defines “prohibited” for the purposes of the clause by reference to clause 285. Amendment 96, in clause 287, page 193, line 1, leave out subsection (8).— (Kevin Hollinrake.) The amendment omits a subsection that is no longer needed as a result of the other government amendments to clause 287 and Schedule 22. Clause 287, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 94, in clause 287, page 192, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert— “(5) Subject to any limitation on its scope provided for by Schedule 22— (a) an exemption given to a person by virtue of an entry in Part 1 of that Schedule covers anything done by the person in the exercise of the person’s functions that would otherwise be prohibited, and (b) an exemption given to a person by virtue of an entry in Part 1A of that Schedule covers anything done under or for the purposes of an exempted redress scheme that would otherwise be prohibited.” The amendment clarifies the general scope of an exemption that will apply by default, unless there is provision in the Schedule for it to be more limited. Amendment 95, in clause 287, page 192, line 37, after “section” insert “— ‘prohibited’ means prohibited by section 285(1) or (2);”.”
“The effect of the exemption given to a person by an entry in Part 1 or 1A of Schedule may be limited, for example by reference to the purposes for which an otherwise prohibited activity is carried out or to the kinds of otherwise prohibited activity that are (or are not) exempt.”
“Amendments made: 93, in clause 287, page 192, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert— “(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may, in particular— (a) provide for an entry in Part 1 of Schedule 22 to apply to a specified person or to any person of a specified description; (b) provide for an entry in Part 1A of that Schedule to apply to a specified scheme or any scheme of a specified description; (c) limit the scope of the exemption given to a person by virtue of an entry in Part 1 or IA of that Schedule, whether in relation to carrying out ADR or making special ADR arrangements (or both).” This amendment clarifies the scope of the power to make regulations under clause 287(2).”
“On the use of the negative procedure, we feel that these are technical and mechanical changes, just to ensure that the statute remains up to date and clear, and to prevent excessive use of parliamentary time. Clearly, ADR providers are regulated by other means. We see no duplication in their regulation. The Financial Ombudsman Service, for example, is already regulated and overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority. We think that it would be needless to duplicate that kind of oversight. Amendment 92 agreed to.”
“I hope that hon. Members will support Government amendments 97 to 107 and Government amendment 112. I commend the clauses and schedules to the Committee.”
“Clause 298 allows regulations to confer functions on persons other than the Secretary of State. This might, for instance, be used to confer accreditation functions on a regulator within the sphere of its regulatory activities. Clause 299 requires traders, when responding to a consumer contract complaint, to inform consumers about any ADR or dispute resolution arrangements in which that trader is required to participate. Clause 300 and schedule 24 revoke the EU-derived ADR regulations of 2015 and amend other legislation. Government amendment 112 is a drafting amendment to ensure there is an accurate description of the content of paragraph 11 of schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Clause 301 makes transitional arrangements, including to ensure that chapter 4 does not apply to ADR already in progress when it comes into force.”
“Government amendments 102 to 105 ensure that those limits will apply if the Secretary of State’s functions are conferred on another person under clause 298. Clause 295 allows the Secretary of State to direct ADR providers and regulators to provide information. This allows the provision of specific information from a person when circumstances require it. Government amendment 106 removes a definition of data protection legislation that is not needed as it is defined elsewhere. Clause 296 allows the Secretary of State to publish or disclose information they hold in relation to this chapter, subject to data protection. Government amendment 107 is a drafting improvement to recognise that clause 296 contains several disclosure powers. Clause 297 defines terms used in clauses 294 to 296.”
“Clause 292 allows the criteria to be kept under review and, if necessary, modified. Clause 293 empowers the Secretary of State to issue enforcement notices to ADR providers who operate without accreditation or violate key obligations. Non-compliance with that notice can be enforced as if it were a court order. The clause contains safeguards, including giving the ADR provider an opportunity to make representations before an enforcement notice is issued. Clause 294 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring ADR providers and others to provide information about ADR to the Secretary of State or publish it for consumer awareness. The clause limits the purposes for which the Secretary of State can require provision of information.”
“Government amendment 100 provides that conditions can be imposed to make an ADR provider responsible for the acts of a third party carrying out ADR on its behalf. Clause 290 sets out how non-compliant ADR providers can be suspended, or their accreditation limited or revoked. It contains safeguards, including the right for ADR providers to make representations before these sanctions are imposed. Clause 291 allows the Secretary of State to charge accredited ADR providers for the cost of their ongoing accreditation. Government amendment 101 corrects a drafting error regarding those fee provisions. Clause 292 and schedule 23 specify the accreditation criteria. These encompass standards relating to accessibility, expertise, fairness, independence, impartiality and transparency.”
“Clauses 288 to 292 and schedule 23 cover the accreditation process for ADR providers, which ensures that standards are high and providers perform well. Clause 288 covers the application process and application requirements, including fees, must be published. Clause 289 covers the outcome of those applications. Applicants will be accredited only if they satisfy the accreditation criteria, which I will explain in the context of clause 292. The Secretary of State can reject, limit or impose conditions on an accreditation, and the applicant must be told why. Government amendments 97, 98 and 99 clarify that, in extending a limited accreditation at a later date, the Secretary of State can impose new conditions or alter existing ones.”
“However, clause 292 and schedule 23 both set out the principles behind what accreditation will look like at every scheme level, including standards on accessibility, expertise, fairness, independence, impartiality and transparency. Clause 292 will allow the criteria to be kept under review and to be modified if necessary and appropriate. On the public record, yes, there will be a list of ADR providers.”
“The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston has raised a number of points for me to respond to. As an overarching point, we are moving from a voluntary to a mandatory system of ADR regulation, so we should not look at it as if we were starting from scratch. We are improving an existing system, which should give us some assurance that this is an improvement, not a step back from improving standards in this area. One of the hon. Lady’s principal points was about the criteria that we apply for accrediting an ADR provider. They have to be kept high-level, because there are a wide variety of different providers, so it would be wrong to be too specific about the criteria we apply.”
“I will come to that. Criterion 3 in schedule 23 clearly sets out that a provider will be required to have the relevant expertise. Has the hon. Lady read that criterion?”
“And that was the question I answered. In response to the hon. Lady’s points, I said that the criteria have to be kept high-level. It would be wrong to be too specific about how we judge “expertise”, because of the wide variety of different ADR providers. What we all need to do is trust the process, which the Secretary of State oversees, of trying to make sure that each provider has the relevant expertise in each scheme area. As I said, there are schemes already in place that we are now putting under the mandatory regime. Of course, expertise will be judged on a scheme-by-scheme basis, but it is difficult to set out exactly what expertise we will require in any particular scheme, other than that we would expect the person to have the relevant experience and expertise.”
“Schedule 24 Chapter 4 of Part 4: consequential amendments etc Amendment made: 112, in schedule 24, page 360, line 22, leave out “duties and powers” and insert “legislation”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This is a drafting amendment to ensure there is an accurate description of the content of paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to. Clause 301 ordered to stand part of t he Bill. Clause 302 Provision of investigative assistance to overseas regulators Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Clause 295, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 296 Disclosure of ADR information by the Secretary of State Amendment made: 107, in clause 296, page 200, line 35, leave out “power conferred by this section is” and insert “powers conferred by this section are”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) The amendment would clarify that the words at the end of subsection (4) apply to both of the powers conferred by the clause. Clause 296, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 297 to 300 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 105, in clause 294, page 199, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (3) whether the publication, monitoring or evaluation is carried out by the Secretary of State, by a person with functions conferred by regulations under section 298 or by any other person acting under arrangements made with that other person by the Secretary of State or a person with such functions.”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) See the explanatory statement for Amendment 102. Clause 294, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 295 ADR information directions Amendment made: 106, in clause 295, page 200, line 13, leave out from “legislation” to end of line 14.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) The amendment would omit words that unnecessarily duplicate a definition in clause 297(6).”
“This amendment, with Amendments 103 to 105, would ensure that the power in subsection (1)(b) of clause 294 is subject to similar constraints to those currently provided for by subsection (3) in relation to the power in subsection (1)(a). The regulation making powers in clause 294(1) are not to be available for imposing requirements to provide information for purposes other than those set out in subsection (3)(a) to (c). Amendment 103, in clause 294, page 199, line 3, leave out from “following” to end of line 4. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 102. Amendment 104, in clause 294, page 199, line 5, leave out “provided to the Secretary of State”. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 102.”
“Clause 289, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 290 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 291 Fees payable by accredited ADR providers Amendment made: 101, in clause 291, page 197, line 9, leave out “potential applicants for accreditation” and insert “accredited ADR providers”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) The amendment would correct a mistake in clause 291(3) which should refer to accredited ADR providers, as they are the persons who pay fees under the clause. Clause 291, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 292 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 23 agreed to. Clause 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 294 ADR information regulations Amendments made: 102, in clause 294, page 199, line 1, after “(1)(a)” insert “or (b)”.”
“Amendment 100, in clause 289, page 195, line 26, at end insert— “(14) Where an accreditation covers the making of special ADR arrangements, conditions on the accreditation may be framed so as to secure that the accredited ADR provider is responsible for acts or omissions of other ADR providers who carry out ADR under special ADR arrangements made by the accredited ADR provider.”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment would clarify that accreditation conditions can be worded so as to make an accredited ADR provider directly responsible for things done by another ADR provider who carries out ADR under special ADR arrangements made by the accredited provider under its accreditation. This could enable regulatory action under clause 290 or 293 to be taken against the accredited ADR provider in relation to acts of the other ADR provider.”
“This amendment and Amendment 99 are drafting amendments to clarify which accreditation conditions can be varied or removed by the Secretary of State when extending an accreditation. Amendment 99, in clause 289, page 195, line 21, leave out “condition on the existing” and insert “existing condition on the”. See the member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 98.”
“It gives broad oversight of other areas of the ADR regime that are not directly covered by this legislation. Question put and agreed to. Clause 288 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 289 Determination of applications for accreditation or extension of accreditation Amendments made: 97, in clause 289, page 195, line 3, leave out “as extended”. This is a drafting amendment to make clear that new accreditation conditions imposed when extending an accreditation are not limited to any particular part of the extended accreditation. Amendment 98, in clause 289, page 195, line 4, leave out “condition on the existing” and insert “existing condition on the”.”
“Lady raised clause 294, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the provision of information about ADR. As clause 294 sets out, that can be for the benefit of consumers, but it can also be with regard to the operation of particular schemes. Again, that is a reason why the information might be requested. It might not be suitable for public consumption, or there could be other reasons, such as commercial sensitivity or data protection, why that information might not be published, but it can be published if the Secretary of State sees fit. The hon. Lady referred to clause 298, which allows regulation to confer functions on persons other than the Secretary of State. That provision might be used, for instance, to confer accreditation functions on a regulator.”
“Under the existing accreditation regime, the Department for Business and Trade charges fees at a pro rata daily rate of £750. That is the context in which we expect fees to be set. The hon. Lady asked what we will do about ADR providers who do not do the right thing and do not provide the proper service. Revocation is available to the Secretary of State. The accreditation criteria will ensure, among other things, that ADR providers meet standards of expertise, fairness and impartiality. If ADR providers do not meet those standards, their accreditation may be revoked or suspended, or additional conditions may be put in place to improve their performance. We have tackled the issue of sufficient expertise, on which we may agree to differ. The hon.”
“People can, of course, complain directly to the Secretary of State if they are dissatisfied with an ADR provider. However, I think a complaint is more likely to come through other routes such as Citizens Advice, which is largely funded by the Government, through trading standards or through letters to Government Ministers from Members of this House; I often respond to such letters that raise concerns. That is how we build a picture of the efficacy or otherwise of a particular ADR scheme. We would expect that at that point, if there are a number of complaints about an ADR provider, the Secretary of State will intervene and use their capabilities under the Bill. As the hon. Lady set out, the Bill provides for ADR providers to pay fees to cover the cost of processing applications and their ongoing accreditation.”
“I am happy to continue the debate with the hon. Lady and to correspond with her on the matter. There is a broader picture here, which I am trying to set out in my response to the hon. Lady. There will certainly be the public list of ADR providers that she referred to. Where people are most likely to find that list will be in dealing with a particular trader in a particular scheme, regarding the requirement set out in clause 299 for a trader responding to a consumer contract complaint to inform consumers about the ADR process. That is where we expect people to be most likely to find the ADR scheme available. The hon. Lady asked how somebody can complain about ADR schemes. That ties in with a broader point about how we manage the whole process, and to other points that she made.”
“For example, the usual time limits for the CMA to be able to impose civil penalties for failures to comply with merger information notices would not work in cases where the CMA is providing assistance, so schedule 25 creates a bespoke time limit specifically for such cases.”
“Clause 306 requires the UK authority to notify the Secretary of State where it has received for assistance and considers it appropriate to provide the requested assistance. Clause 307 places a duty on the CMA to publish guidance in connection with requests for investigative assistance and the provision of that assistance. Any regulator with the powers to provide investigative assistance must have regard to that guidance, which must be approved by the Secretary of State. Clause 308 and schedule 25 amend the existing legislative framework to ensure that the new investigative assistance regime slots in properly and runs smoothly.”
“Clause 304 provides a framework for UK authorities to assess whether it is appropriate to provide the investigative assistance requested by an overseas authority; it also sets out the circumstances in which a UK authority has no discretion and must reject an incoming request for investigative assistance—for example, if there is no reciprocity and no overriding public benefit to the UK in providing the assistance in any event. Clause 305 outlines the factors that the Secretary of State must consider in deciding whether to approve a request for assistance. For example, the Secretary of State may reject a request for assistance where they consider that it would be more appropriate for any investigation to be carried out by the UK authority solely for its own purposes.”
“Secondly, the UK regulator must assess whether it would be appropriate to provide the assistance requested by the overseas regulator, using the conditions set out in clause 304. Thirdly, the Secretary of State must have authorised the UK regulator to provide the assistance in accordance with clause 305. Clause 303 sets out that the request must be made in writing by the overseas authority, describe the matter for which assistance is requested, and detail any potential penalties that might be imposed following the overseas investigation.”
“Chapter 1 of part 5 of the Bill enhances the UK’s ability to co-operate internationally on competition and consumer matters, as open and fair competition globally ensures the best opportunities for UK businesses and consumers. Clause 302 would introduce a new power for the Competition and Markets Authority and certain consumer protection regulators to provide investigative assistance to an overseas regulator. This power will apply to civil investigations or proceedings related to competition and digital markets and consumer protection. The clause sets out three core requirements that must be met before investigative assistance is provided. First, the overseas regulator requesting assistance must be carrying out a function that corresponds to a function that the UK regulator has under UK law.”
“There are just a couple of points to make, I think. On clause 302, the hon. Lady asked whether the police would be involved in any of the investigations. The clause sets out clearly that those are civil matters, not criminal matters. The overseas regulator requesting system is supposed to carry out a function that corresponds to a function that the UK regulator has under UK law.”
“In the course of anybody’s work, if there is evidence of criminal activity, we would expect an enforcement agency or regulator to share that with the relevant enforcement authorities, including the police. Was that the point the hon. Member was trying to make?”
“Lady referred to—discussions between the regulator and the Secretary of State—that we expect to see in guidance. We expect the regulators and the Secretary of State to engage closely in considering whether to provide assistance. Guidance will be put in place and agreed between the regulators and the Secretary of State to set out how the measure will work in practice. Question put and agreed to. Clause 302 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 303 to 308 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 25 agreed to . Clause 309 Disclosing information overseas Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“If the hon. Lady has any further points that she wants clarified, perhaps she will write to me, as I am not quite sure what she is referring to. The hon. Lady asked about safeguards and the considerations to be taken into account when agreeing to requests for assistance. The clauses provide significant safeguards with regard to the conditions that the authority itself needs to consider and, when it comes to the authorisation by a Secretary of State, consideration of appropriate protections, for example, around confidentiality and other considerations set out in the Bill. Further details about the process and how investigative assistance will work in practice will be set out in detailed guidance. That is another point that the hon.”
“Finally, the clause introduces a new gateway for overseas disclosures by a UK public authority for the purposes of facilitating the terms of a designated co-operation arrangement. The Secretary of State will have a power to designate suitable co-operation arrangements in regulations if they are satisfied that they meet the safeguards set out in the legislation.”
“There are restrictions that apply to the use and further disclosure of any information that is shared under the two gateways. The restrictions mean that, unless the disclosing authority provides its consent, information disclosed must not be used by the overseas authority for any purpose other than the one for which the information was originally disclosed; nor may the information be passed on to a third party. The Secretary of State will retain the existing power to prevent overseas disclosure of information if they consider the relevant proceedings or investigation would be more appropriately brought or carried out by authorities in the UK or in another country.”
“When deciding whether to make a disclosure under the two gateways, the UK public authority will need to have regard to a number of factors, such as whether the laws and the practices of the other country can ensure that confidential information is appropriately stored and protected. When deciding whether to make a disclosure to facilitate the functions of the overseas public authority only, the UK authority must give due regard to an additional layer of considerations. That includes whether the reason for the request is sufficiently serious to justify the disclosure of information. The Secretary of State will retain a power to modify, add to, or remove any of the considerations for each gateway. That is to ensure that the list of considerations remains balanced and appropriate.”
“Clause 309 provides clearer rules and more efficient gateways for information sharing between UK authorities and their overseas counterparts. The powers will apply to all UK public authorities covered by part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002—primarily authorities with functions in connection with competition and consumer protection law. The existing overseas disclosure gateway in part 9 will be replaced with three new gateways. Under the first, a relevant UK authority may share information with an overseas authority for the joint purpose of facilitating both its own statutory functions and the functions of the overseas authority. Under the second new gateway, a relevant UK authority can share information only to facilitate the functions of an overseas authority.”
“For example, if a business asks for repeated extensions to deadlines for providing information, the duty will bolster the CMA’s ability to move the investigation along. The CMA will need to continue to ensure fair process and make evidence-based robust decisions. Parties will continue to have a right to appeal against decisions made by the CMA.”
“Clause 310 introduces a statutory duty of expedition in relation to the CMA’s competition and consumer law functions, including the functions relating to the new digital competition regime. Schedule 26 makes changes to the legislation that empower the sector regulators to exercise their concurrent competition powers so that they are under an equivalent duty when they do so. The new duty will require the CMA to have regard to the need for making a decision, or taking action, as soon as is reasonably practicable. It will apply to casework functions and decision making, but will exclude auxiliary functions such as the publication of guidance. The impact of the new duty of expedition will vary on a case-by-case basis.”
“This clause does not apply to commencement regulations. Clause 315 sets out that the Bill will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
“Clause 311 defines various terms used throughout the Bill, such as “digital content” and “firm”. Clause 312 provides that expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or CMA as a result of the Bill is to be met from funds provided by Parliament. Clause 313 gives the Secretary of State a power by regulations to make any provision that is consequential on the Bill or any provision made under it. The power can be used to amend any legislation, but it is limited to primary legislation passed or made before the end of the parliamentary Session in which this Bill is passed. This limitation also applies to any secondary legislation made under the primary legislation. Clause 314 makes further provision in relation to powers to make regulations under the Bill, including interpretative provisions about the relevant parliamentary procedures.”
“We want to ensure that consumers cannot game the system by entering a contract, benefiting from it by downloading lots of information or content, watching it, and then cancelling without paying. We are dealing with that through secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman talks about the cost to business. Yes, there is a cost to business: the expectation is that the annual business impact will be about £170 million a year, but there are establishment costs too. It is not exactly a zero-sum game, because we want competition to develop through the provisions in the Bill. That will be good for consumers and businesses, so we believe there will be a net gain from this legislation. We want to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. Businesses should do well, but not at the expense of unfairly treated consumers. We seek to strike that balance.”
“They do not go as far as his Front-Bench colleagues would like them to go, in terms of cost to business. We believe we have struck the right balance. Our opinion about notifications differs from that of the various providers that have made submissions. We think notifications are important because we want users to understand the contracts they are in and the methods of exiting them. The basic principle is that it should be as easy to exit a contract as it is to enter one. Some providers still want to require the customer to ring a call centre. We are having discussions, but we think we have struck a reasonable balance. There are certainly issues relating to cooling-off periods, which the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed previously.”