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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 72 and 73.

Clause 230 stand part.

Government amendments 74 to 77.

Clauses 231 to 233 stand part.

Clause 229 sets out that it is a criminal offence for a trader to engage in a commercial practice that involves any of the following: misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices, any of the practices in the list of banned practices in schedule 18, save for those expressly excepted, and/or knowingly or recklessly engaging in a commercial practice that contravenes the requirements of professional diligence.

Clause 230 describes the defences that may be available to defendants charged with offences under clause 229. These are a defence of due diligence and an innocent publication defence. To avail of the due diligence defence, a defendant must prove that the offence was due to the act or omission of a third party or information provided by a third party. The innocent publication defence is available, in certain circumstances, to a defendant charged with a relevant offence that is alleged to have been committed by the publication of an advertisement.

Government amendments 72 and 73 preserve the current effect of existing consumer law by excluding contraventions of the requirements of professional diligence from the offences to which these defences apply.

Clause 231 sets out the rules on liability when a trader commits an offence as a result of an act or omission by another person, and when a body corporate commits an offence. It is a restatement of the same provision in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, or CPRs.

Government amendments 74 to 77 preserve the current effect of the CPRs. This means that contraventions of professional diligence are excluded from the offences to which the criminal liability of others applies.

Clause 232 sets out the penalty for offences. It is a restatement of the same provision from the CPRs.

Clause 233 sets out the time limit for prosecution. This is within three years of the offence taking place, or within one year of the discovery of the offence by the prosecutor, whichever is earlier. The time limit is the same as set out in the CPRs and enforcers will be familiar with their application.

I hope that the Committee will support Government amendments 72 to 77 and clauses 229 to 233.

Clause 229 introduces provisions setting out the conditions under which it would be a criminal offence for a trader to engage in an unfair commercial practice of a kind prohibited by clause 217. The Minister outlined what those practices would be: a misleading action, a misleading omission, omission of material information from an invitation to purchase, and so on. The clause also makes every practice listed in schedule 18 a criminal offence, apart from using editorial content in the media to promote a product where it is not made clear that it is a paid-for promotion, or including in an advert a direct appeal to children to buy advertised products.

The Opposition recognise the importance of making unfair practices criminal offences and support this clause. However, why does the legislation specifically make two practices in schedule 18 not subject to a criminal offence?

Clause 230 provides a range of potential defences for an offence charged under clause 229. We recognise the need for a defence of due diligence and therefore support this clause. However, we would welcome further explanation from the Minister regarding subsection (1), which specifically outlines that it is a defence for the trader if the offence was “a mistake or accident”. I just wonder whether there is any more guidance regarding what the bar or threshold is here, and about how individuals and businesses will be required to prove that an offence occurred as a result of a mistake or accident.

Amendment 72 ensures that the defence provided for under clause 230(1), the defence of due diligence, does not apply in relation to an offence under clause 229(4). This replicates the current position under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. We welcome this common-sense amendment, and we similarly welcome amendment 73.

Clause 231 sets out that where a body corporate commits an offence with the consent of an officer of that body, both the officer and the body corporate can be prosecuted and punished. This also applies if the offence is attributable to neglect on the part of the officer. We welcome this clause because it ensures that all those responsible for an offence that has a detrimental impact on consumers are subject to being held accountable and to action as a result of that offence.

Amendments 74 to 77 ensure that the imposition of liability on another person does not apply to an offence under clause 229(4). This replicates the current position under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Assuming that this is consistent with the current legislation, the Opposition of course support this amendment.

Clause 232 sets out the penalty for offences under this chapter, and how a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. We support this clause.

Finally, clause 233 outlines the time limits for prosecution under clause 229, with a prosecution needing to begin within three years of an offence, or within one year of the offence being discovered by the prosecutor. We support this clause, although is the Minister confident that within a year of discovery will be long enough, particularly considering the current resourcing pressures on our prosecution and justice systems? He may have confidence, and of course we do not want to lengthen the timescales, but how will he know how many prosecutions are missed due to running out of time?

The banned practices to which the Shadow Minister and I have referred are not currently subject to criminal liability, and we did not consider it appropriate to introduce new criminal offences.

On the “mistake or accident” defence, the defendant has an obligation to prove it was a mistake or an accident, which I think is a reasonable provision.

The timescales are replicated from the current timescales in the 2008 regulations, so there is nothing new here. We are pretty confident the timescales will be appropriate but, of course, we will continue to engage with the relevant enforcement bodies to make sure they are appropriate.

How will the Minister know how many prosecutions are missed due to running out of time?

We have continuing engagement with the various enforcement bodies, such as trading standards and the Competition and Markets Authority, through either officials or Ministers. If there were a problem, we are confident we would receive that feedback and be able to make a decision on how to act accordingly.

rose—

Is this an Intervention or a further speech?

It was meant to be an Intervention, but the Minister sat down.

I have concluded my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 229 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.