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 40 of 71.
“Clause 262 sets out that an officer can be held criminally liable if an offence was committed by a company or other corporate body with the consent or connivance of that officer or due to their neglect. That is necessary to strengthen the deterrent effect of the offence and hold other responsible people accountable. Clause 263 sets out that traders who commit an offence contrary to clause 260(1) are liable to a fine. Amendment 128 would allow traders to be prosecuted in both magistrates court and Crown court and increase potential penalties, including imprisonment, where traders do not inform consumers about their cancellation rights before entering off-premises subscription contracts. I appreciate that hon. Members wish to ensure that penalties are consistent with those elsewhere in the Bill.”
“That approach maintains consistency with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which stipulate that failure to provide required pre-contract information about cooling-off cancellation rights in the case of off-premises contracts is an offence. Clause 261 provides a defence for a person charged with the offence set out in clause 260. That is to ensure that if an offence was committed due to the act or omission of a third party and without fault on the part of the person charged, they are not held criminally liable. The trader must prove that they exercised due diligence to avoid the offence being committed by themselves or another person under their control.”
“The clause sets out that the trader commits an offence if they enter into an off-premises subscription contract and do not provide information about a consumer’s initial cooling-off cancellation right. Off-premises contracts mainly consist of contracts that are not concluded on the trader’s business premises and include situations such as doorstep selling. In off-premises sales, the consumer is typically more vulnerable to poor trading practices. It is therefore necessary to make breach of this requirement an offence to act as an extra deterrent to rogue traders.”
“The hon. Lady asks me to address her point about the defence of due diligence. The defences listed in the clause are consistent with defences in other areas of the law, so we are comfortable that they strike the right balance. Question put and agreed to. Clause 260 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 261 and 262 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 263 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 264 Information and notices: timing and burden of proof”
“Clause 269 sets out the powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to a number of matters covered by this chapter, including regulations related to information and notices that traders must provide to consumers, arrangements traders must make to enable consumers to exit their contracts, and details regarding overpayments and refunds. Regulations may also restrict what notice period traders can require from consumers to end their contract. Most of the areas covered by this power involve matters of detail on which the Government will likely want to make different provision for different kinds of cases and contract models.”
“Whether that is the case will depend on the circumstances, including whether the overseas-based trader targeted the consumer in the UK. That will ensure that traders cannot avoid providing UK consumers with the protections of this chapter simply by operating or structuring their operations overseas. The clause also makes it clear that the chapter applies only to new contracts and not to existing ones, reflecting the usual principle that new regulatory requirements should not operate retrospectively. Clause 268 sets out that this chapter applies to the Crown.”
“That includes any term that seeks to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability arising from the implied terms of this chapter. In cases specified in regulations under clause 269(1)(e), the clause will also prevent traders’ contract terms from allowing them to take a renewal payment before the day on which a subscription contract renews. Clause 266 sets out that a consumer can seek legal remedies, other than those set out in the chapter, if a trader breaches a term of a subscription contract. They can claim those remedies, in addition to ones under this chapter, as long as they do not recover twice for the same loss. Clause 267 ensures that the measures in the chapter will apply where a UK consumer and an overseas trader agree a contract governed by a foreign law if the contract has a close connection with the UK.”
“Clauses 264 to 273 set out how to determine when information or notices are deemed to have been given and where the burden of proof lies in any dispute. Clause 264 sets out how to determine whether a trader or consumer has taken action as required by this chapter, and who is responsible for proving that. Government amendment 79 is a drafting amendment to ensure consistency across the affected subsection as to when a consumer is treated as having given notice of their desire to end or cancel their subscription contract. The amendment is important to ensure that the clause works as intended, and I hope Members agree that it necessary. Clause 265 will ensure that any term in a subscription contract that conflicts with this chapter will have no legal effect.”
“Amendment 81, in clause 272, page 181, line 1, leave out “pre-contract”. This is a drafting amendment to expand the definition of “durable medium”. Amendment 82, in clause 272, page 181, line 4, leave out “pre-contract”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This is a drafting amendment to expand the definition of “durable medium”. Clause 272, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 273 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 274 Meaning of “consumer savings scheme contract” Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“There is no policy justification for emanations and servants of the Crown not to be bound by this chapter if they are entering a contract with consumers of the kind regulated by this chapter. We will certainly work with businesses, regulators and consumer groups in developing the regulations under these chapters to ensure they are fair and proportionate, and to make sure that the arrangements for things like how traders issue reminder notices work for both parties. Amendment 79 agreed to. Clause 264, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 265 to 271 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 272 Interpretation Amendments made: 80, in clause 272, page 180, line 35, leave out “pre-contract”. This is a drafting amendment to expand the definition of “durable medium”.”
“The shadow Minister makes some fair points. In terms of the requirement for the consumer to prove cancellation, as she no doubt recognises, clause 6 contains obligations on the trader as well, to ensure that there is a burden of proof on them as to whether the information notice had been given by the trader to the consumer. Clause 253 requires the trader to send an acknowledgment to the consumer that they received the notice to end the contract. We also address this in business and consumer guidance. This approach to burden of proof and the trader’s duty to confirm receipt of cancellation via their website is in line with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Businesses and consumer advice bodies are familiar with those regulations, and traders should be used to complying with them.”
“Those requirements cover the protection of consumer moneys and also permitted uses of funds, ensuring they can only be used to supply the goods and services consumers signed up for. Clause 280 places traders under a legal duty to convey certain information to a consumer about the protection mechanism used. That is necessary to ensure consumers can check their money is protected as required and know what to do if they need to reclaim it. Clause 281 adds this part of the Bill to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, which means that businesses with primary authority partnerships will be able to receive tailored advice, helping reduce the costs of compliance without reducing regulatory protections. Clause 282 defines certain terms in this part of the Bill.”
“Clause 277 sets out that consumer savings schemes must be underpinned by arrangements covering the cost of refunding consumer payments in the event of the trader’s insolvency. It allows traders to choose trust arrangements or insurance. This is the heart of the regulations. Users of consumer savings schemes make payments in good faith expecting to be able to redeem their money at the end of the savings period, and these provisions will protect consumer payments and maintain confidence in the sector. Clause 278 specifies the baseline requirements for traders choosing the insurance option. They include a requirement that it must be sufficient to return all moneys saved by scheme users not redeemed at the time of insolvency. Clause 279 specifies minimum requirements for traders protecting payments via trust arrangements.”
“Part 4, chapter 3 of the Bill introduces requirements that businesses operating consumer savings schemes such as Christmas savings clubs adequately protect consumers. Clause 274 defines consumer savings scheme contracts for the purposes of the Bill as including contracts that seek to incentivise members not to withdraw their money until a certain time. Clause 275 sets out definitions. Clause 276 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend schedule 21 to exclude contracts or arrangements in specific sectors. That will ensure businesses are not subject to dual regulation and safeguards them from overburdensome or potentially contradictory regulations. Schedule 21 provides a specific set of exclusions from the regulations for certain arrangements, including for small businesses with low-value schemes.”
“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.”
“Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned . —(Mike Wood.)”
“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.”
“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.”
“That eliminates any jurisdictional gap within the UK and restates and consolidates relevant sections of the Enterprise Act 2002. Clause 167 will allow evidence from previous court proceedings to be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving that infringing conduct has occurred under this part. Convictions in the criminal courts and any relevant findings in the civil courts are admissible to prove that a person has engaged in an infringing practice or has been an accessory to such a practice.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. The clauses restate and update the Enterprise Act 2002. Clause 165 sets out which courts in the UK have jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for consumer protection orders. The globalised nature of modern business means that a trader with UK consumers may well not have a place of business or carry on business in any part of the UK. The clause provides that in those circumstances the relevant consumer’s place of domicile will determine which UK court has jurisdiction. Clause 166 will extend the effect of consumer protection orders made by a court with jurisdiction in one part of the UK to other parts of the UK, as if the order were made in those other parts.”
“The clause is crucial to stopping unscrupulous traders making wild promises or getting the enforcer bogged down in disproving claims that should be backed up by evidence. Clause 171 makes an exception to exempt the Crown from the monetary penalties that the court may impose under chapter 3 when it is engaging as a trader in commercial transactions with consumers. I commend the clauses to the Committee.”
“The exercise of the power is subject to two important conditions: first, that the infringing company meets the definition of a member of an interconnected corporate group at the time the order is made or at any time when the order is in force, and secondly that the court may make an order binding on other members of the same corporate group only if it considers it just, reasonable and proportionate. That will require an objective assessment on the facts of each case. Clause 170 will apply where the court is considering an application for a consumer protection order made in relation to a suspected breach of unfair trading prohibitions. It will empower the court to compel traders to substantiate any factual claim made as part of their commercial practices. The burden of proving the accuracy of claims is on the trader.”
“What a helpful question. I do not have those figures to hand, but I am happy to write to the hon. Member if we cannot find the information for him today. I am grateful for his intervention. Clause 168 will give the court a discretionary power to make some or all of the requirements of a consumer protection order, including monetary penalties, binding on other members of the interconnected corporate group of the infringer. This power will prevent complex corporate structures from frustrating the ability of enforcement interventions to protect consumers and law-abiding traders.”
“Trading standards has the capacity to do that for individual websites, but I understand that there are wider concerns regarding other areas of online activity that we are keen to address.”
“We have also met with eBay, Wish and other platforms to point out their responsibilities. As far as we are concerned, as distributors they have responsibilities to proactively remove unsafe content. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I have said this to him before—we intend to look at that again through the product safety review, which we are about to announce, and that should clarify those responsibilities and ensure that unsafe products do not hit the marketplace in the first place. I take the points on takedown powers very seriously, and I heard the same evidence from trading standards that the hon. Gentleman heard. We are keen to look at that matter and, again, it might involve another layer of enforcement so that we can then try to prevent those unsafe products from hitting marketplaces across the UK.”
“The Government policy in this area, of course, is that misleading information is already a breach of existing consumer laws. The CMA has issued guidance to help businesses to comply with existing obligations in that green claims code. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark asked about product safety. Rather than Deputy Dawg, I would use the analogy of Clint Eastwood in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”. We are working very hard on this, in terms of product safety. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, which I work very closely with, comes under my remit. It has put a huge amount of time and effort into market surveillance and ensuring that products online are safe. We have real concerns over whether that is the case, of course, and we recently met with Amazon to discuss that issue.”
“On private enforcement, and how it would work, it could happen on the basis of an enforcer’s application, or on the Secretary of State’s initiative after consultation with a proposed enforcer. I think that the only private designated enforcer currently is Which?. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston. On the hon. Lady’s points about a primary authority, a primary authority can be a local authority, it could provide information about the business to enforcing authorities and help direct their efforts to improve regulatory efficiencies. On greenwashing, she is right that the CMA is conducting an investigation into ASOS, Boohoo and Asda. We have the green claims code to try to ensure that there are standards in this area.”
“On resourcing, the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark were both right to mention the courts backlog. If my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, committed to write to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will do that. It has not come across my desk yet, but there will be no delay when it does, short of ensuring that it answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions. One thing to say about that, of course, is that the fact that we are putting in place a direct enforcement regime may well ease the pressures on the courts, because the CMA can take action without recourse to them. That should help by ensuring that not all such cases need to go to court.”
“Clause s 166 to 171 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 172 Power of CMA to investigate suspected infringements Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Yes, it is coming shortly. Turning to greenwashing, we take the matter very seriously, and there are two ways to deal with it. We can do ex ante regulation, which involves building a huge bureaucracy around a certain system and people checking everything, or we can put in an ex post regulation deterrent regime, which involves a code or set of standards that companies should adhere to, and then an enforcement regime that takes breaches of the code very seriously and applies penalties to organisations that do not meet the standards. The latter is a more efficient and effective way to regulate, and that is the approach we are taking. That should prove a deterrent and prevent people from doing the wrong thing in the first place. Question put and agreed to. Clause 165 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“An online interface notice may be given to the infringer or to any relevant third party. For example, an online interface notice may require a third party to remove, modify or restrict access to content that can be found on an online interface, such as a website. An online interface notice may be given to an overseas third party if the third party satisfies the UK connection test at subsection (3)(c). This clause therefore takes into account the global nature of online commerce, but does not give the CMA unfettered extraterritorial jurisdiction. I hope hon. Members will agree that it is appropriate that this provision has cross-border reach to websites, platforms and applications that direct their business activities to consumers in the United Kingdom.”
“As well as giving directions to prevent or stop infringing practices or require enhanced consumer measures, a final infringement order may impose monetary penalties. That may be up to £300,000 or, if it is higher, 10% of the subject’s total turnover, in relation to past or ongoing infringing conduct. Clause 175 empowers the CMA to include enhanced consumer measures as part of a final infringement notice if it considers them to be just, reasonable and proportionate. Clause 176 empowers the CMA to issue an online interface notice to avoid the risk of serious harm to the collective interest of consumers. To exercise that power, the CMA needs to be satisfied that no other tools under the direct enforcement regime, nor the court’s power to make interim online interface orders, would be wholly effective.”
“Clause 173 allows the CMA to issue provisional infringement notices to enforcement subjects. It provides that enforcement subjects have a right to know the claims against them and be given an opportunity to make representations in a meaningful manner before a final decision is taken by the CMA. That ensures that the direct enforcement process is fair, with appropriate safeguards to protect the legitimate rights of the enforcement subject. Clause 174 is fundamental to the direct enforcement regime and gives the CMA a discretionary power to issue a final infringement notice. To do so, the CMA must be satisfied that the infringing conduct has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.”
“Clauses 172 to 176 set out a range of new enforcement powers for the CMA to determine whether certain consumer laws have been breached and, if so, to direct compliance and impose remedies and penalties. These powers correspond to powers available to the civil courts under chapter 3 of this part of the Bill to make consumer protection orders, but are available in relation to certain consumer protection laws only. Clause 172 gives power to the CMA to conduct an investigation into suspected infringements under its direct enforcement regime. This acts as a trigger for the use of the CMA’s direct enforcement powers under chapter 4 of part 3. To use its direct enforcement powers, the CMA must have reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringing practice has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur.”
“Clause 172 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 173 to 176 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 177 Undertakings”
“Circumstances will vary widely from case to case, and the CMA will be the best judge of whether publication is desirable in any given situation. What about other consumer enforcers? We believe that the CMA has a leading and co-ordinating role in both the public enforcement of consumer law and in tackling market-wide practices that hinder consumer choice. The new direct enforcement model will enable the CMA to act faster and take on more cases on behalf of the public, resulting in an estimated further tens of millions—or potentially hundreds of millions—of pounds of direct benefit to consumers. Improving the speed and responsiveness of the CMA’s interventions has the greatest potential to safeguard the wider interests of consumers right across the economy. Question put and agreed to.”
“In terms of publication of a notice, I think that that is a judgment for the CMA. There may be public interest in making a notice public—for example, to inform traders or consumers about practices of concern. Why would it not publish a notice? Well, it might be, for example, that that might prejudice the CMA’s investigation, which is clearly not something that we would want to happen. The hon. Lady asked about the timescale for response. That will be something that the CMA consults on, in terms of how the process will happen, and stakeholders will be able to input into that consultation. However, we expect clear timelines to be set for responses. Why would the CMA not give an infringement notice? Well, it might be that it decides, for example, that another enforcer might be better placed to take forward enforcement in that area.”
“I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 177, page 118, line 12, at end insert— “(2A) Subsections (1) to (6) of section 156 (inclusion of enhanced consumer measures in undertakings) apply to an undertaking under this section as they apply to an undertaking under section 155(2).” This amendment ensures that requirements imposed by undertakings given under clause 177 may include the taking of enhanced consumer measures (as defined by clause 213).”
“As with the majority of the CMA’s direct enforcement powers under this part, any assertion or sanctions for wrongdoing must be preceded by a provisional notice. That includes, for example, proposed directions and proposed penalties, and an invitation to make representations.”
“The CMA can still give those notices if they relate to matters or persons not addressed in the undertaking, if circumstances have materially changed since the undertaking was accepted, or if the CMA suspects the undertaking has been breached or was based on false or misleading information. Clause 179 sets out the process that the CMA must follow to make a material variation or to release a person from an undertaking once it has been accepted. The clause is important for procedural fairness, and ensures that the CMA cannot significantly modify or release persons from undertakings without giving notice to the other party and considering their views. Clause 180 allows the CMA to start a process to enforce compliance if it has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has breached at least one term of an undertaking.”
“The power to add ECMs to undertakings is available to the CMA, and other enforcers in the court-based regime, under clauses 155(3) and 156 of the Bill. The inclusion of ECMs in undertakings has been a valuable part of the toolkit available under the court-based regime. The amendment makes it expressly clear that the power already available in the court-based regime is also available to the CMA under its direct enforcement powers under chapter 4 of part 3. Clause 178 prevents the CMA, once it accepts an undertaking under clause 177, from giving a final infringement notice or an online interface notice to the same enforcement subject in relation to the same matter.”
“Government amendments 60 and 61, and clauses 177 to 182, govern the acceptance and enforcement of undertakings by the CMA under its direct enforcement regime. Clause 177 provides a framework for the CMA to accept an undertaking as an alternative to giving a final infringement notice or online interface notice. The CMA may not accept undertakings unless they include provisions that effectively stop the conduct of concern. The more co-operative nature of the undertakings procedure can lead to faster resolution of consumer protection concerns and shorten the enforcement process. Government amendment 60 adds a provision to clause 177 empowering the CMA to include enhanced consumer measures—or ECMs—in undertakings that it accepts under its direct enforcement powers.”
“As I said earlier, there are measures to ensure that any representations are given earnestly. A reasonable excuse might be that the trader was not aware of some of the difficulties surrounding the product. There may be various circumstances. When implementing and enforcing legislation, we always try to ensure that the CMA can apply discretion in different circumstances where an honest mistake has occurred.”
“Members will support Government amendment 60, and clauses 177 to 182 standing part of the Bill.”
“If the CMA is satisfied that a breach occurred without a reasonable excuse it can impose a penalty. That ensures that there are meaningful consequences to breaching an undertaking, to deter unscrupulous traders. Clause 182 states the types of penalties and the maximum penalty amounts that can be imposed by the CMA through a final breach of undertakings enforcement notice. The penalty imposed can be the higher of a fixed amount up to £150,000 or 5% of total turnover. A daily rate penalty can be up to £15,000 or 5% of the total value of the daily turnover, whichever is higher, accruing over the days in which non-compliance continues. Both a fixed amount and a daily rate penalty may be imposed, but they must not exceed the fixed amounts that I have just referenced. I hope that hon.”
“We are now getting into the weeds of this. We have similar views about online marketplaces and their responsibilities. In our view, their responsibility as a distributor requires them to ensure that products are safe before they are placed on the marketplace in the first place. There should be no excuse for a distributor not checking the validity of a standards marking, for example. That is a responsibility that I have discussed with various platforms. We want to get to the position where products are verified before they enter the marketplace, through checks and balances. Rather than working reactively, platforms should work proactively in such instances, but part of that crosses over into work that we are doing in the product safety review, which we have discussed previously and will, I am sure, discuss again.”
“The CMA will set out its approach to determining the period within which representations have to be made in forthcoming guidance, preceded by the public consultation.”
“The Opposition make a reasonable point about the reasonable excuse. We have left the threshold pretty broad to reflect the range of situations that could prevent compliance. We feel that a closed list on the face of the Bill would bind the CMA’s hands and make the measure less effective. As hon. Members know, the Bill requires the CMA, in the guidance on exercising its direct enforcement functions that it produces under clause 205, to provide information about the factors it takes into account in determining whether a reasonable excuse exists, and that will include examples. The hon. Lady asked how soon after a provisional notice the CMA will issue a final breach of undertakings enforcement notice. She pre-empted my response to that: it will, again, be subject to consultation. Of course, it is at the discretion of the CMA.”
“Clause 181, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 182 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 183 Provisional breach of directions enforcement notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“It is perfectly reasonable that we have that debate, but we will do so we when we discuss clause 205. It is right that the Opposition challenge us and the CMA to ensure that the guidance is clear, and covers all bases. Amendment 60 agreed to. Clause 177, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 178 to 180 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 181 Final breach of undertakings enforcement notice Amendment made: 61, in clause 181, page 121, line 28, at end insert— “(e) state that the respondent has a right to appeal against the notice and the main details of that right (so far as not stated in accordance with paragraph (d)).”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment requires that the information contained in a final breach of undertakings enforcement notice includes information about rights of appeal.”